Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2017  with  funding  from 
Duke  University  Libraries 


https://archive.org/details/slaveryantislave01good 


SLAVERY  AND  ANTI-SLAVERY; 

A HISTORY  OF  THE 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  IN  BOTH  HEMISPHERES 


WITH  A VIEW  OF 


THE  SLAVERY  QUESTION 


IN  THE 


UNITED  STATES. 


WILLIAM  GOODELL, 

AUTHOR  OF  “THE  DEMOCRACY  OF  CHRISTIANITY.” 


THIRD  EDITION. 


NEW-YORK  : 

WILLIAM  GOODELL, 

48  BEEKJIAN-STREET 
1855. 


Entered,  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  Year  One  Thousand  Eight  Hundred 
and  Fifty-two,  by  WILLIAM  GOODELL,  in  the  Clerk’s  Office  of  the  District 
Court  of  the  United  States,  for  the  Southern  District  of  New  York. 


O.  A.  ALVOED,  PRINTER, 
29  Gold-st.,  N.  Y. 


J.  P.  JONES  & CO.,  STEREOTYPERS, 
183  William-street,  N.  Y. 


TTOE  FLOWERS  COLLECTION 


*2-  6 

(p 


CONTENTS. 


CHAPTER  I.  page. 

Magnitude  and  necessity  of  the  struggle 1 

' CHAPTER  II. 

Origin  of  the  modern  Slave  Trade  and  Slavery 4 

CHAPTER  III. 

Slavery  and  the  Slave  Trade  in  the  British  Colonies  in  North  America, 
now  the  United  States 10 

CHAPTER  IV. 

Early  testimonies  against  Slavery  and  the  Slave  Trade 27 

CHAPTER  V. 

Action  of  religious  bodies  against  the  Slave  Trade  and  Slavery,  com- 
mencing before  the  American  Revolution,  and  the  results 32 

CHAPTER  VI. 

Of  Slavery  and  its  abolition  in  England 44 

CHAPTER  VII. 

Of  efforts  for  abolishing  the  African  Slave  Trade 53 

CHAPTER  VIII. 

Period  of  the  American  Revolution,  and  the  establishment  of  an  inde- 
pendent Government. 69 

CHAPTER  IX. 

Era  of  forming  the  Federal  Constitution 81 


£}.  q h>  a r;  ty 

kJ-  %j  i 


IV 


CONTENTS. 


CHAPTER  X.  page. 

Of  direct  anti-Slavery  efforts,  including  ecclesiastical  action,  from  the 
period  of  the  Revolution  to  the  close  of  the  last  century  ; and  the 
abolition  of  Slavery  in  the  Northern  States 91 

CHAPTER  XI. 

Decline  of  the  spirit  of  Liberty,  and  growth  of  Slavery,  since  the  Re- 
volution ; their  causes  and  early  manifestations 118 

CHAPTER  XII. 

Position  of  the  American  Churches  respecting  Slavery,  during  the  first 
half  of  the  Nineteenth  Century. — I.  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  143 

CHAPTER  XIII. 

Position  of  the  American  Churches,  &c.  (continued). — II.  The  Pres- 
byterian Church 151 

CHAPTER  XIV. 

Position  of  the  American  Churches,  &c.  (continued). — III.  Con- 
gregationalists a 163 

CHAPTER  XV'\y 

Position  of  the  American  Churches,  &c.  (continued). — IV.  Baptists.  183 

CHAPTER  XVI. 

Position  of  the  American  Churches,  &c.  (continued). — V.  The 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church 191 

CHAPTER  XVIlU 

Position  of  the  American  Churches,  &c.  (continued). — VI.  Other 
Sects — General  view 195 

CHAPTER  XVIII. 

Position  of  the  American  Churches,  &c.  (continued). — VII.  Volun- 

\/tary  Associations  connected  with  several  Sects — Conclusion 202 

CHAPTER  XIX. 

Action  of  the  Federal  Government,  to  the  close  of  the  first  Presiden- 
tial Administration 220 

CHAPTER  XX. 

Subsequent  action  of  the  Federal  Government — Colored  people — Slave 
territory — New  Slave  States — Federal  District 237 

CHAPTER  XXI. 

Further  action  of  the  Federal  Government — American  Slave  Trade — 
African  Slave  Trade 247 


CONTENTS. 


V 


CHAPTER  XXII. 

Further  action  of  the  Federal  Government — Continued  subserviency 
of  the  national  diplomacy  to  the  demands  of  the  Slaveholders 263 

CHAPTER  XXIII. 

Further  action  of  the  Federal  Government — Hayti — Florida — Sem- 
inole War 268 

CHAPTER  XXIY. 

Further  action  of  the  Federal  Government — Acquisition  of  Texas 272 

CHAPTER  XXV. 

Conspiracy  for  the  conquest  of  Mexico,  and  the  disrupture  of  the 
Federal  Union  in  1806 — Controlling  power  of  the  Conspirators  over 
the  Federal  Judiciary 280 

CHAPTER  XXVI. 

Further  action  of  the  Federal  Government — The  war  with  Mexico — 
Acquisition  of  California,  New  Mexico,  and  Utah  287 

CHAPTER  XXVII. 

Further  action  of  the  Federal  Government — Result  of  the  Conquest 
of  California — Its  admission  as  a Free  State — “ The  Compromise.”  306 

CHAPTER  XXVIII. 

Further  action  of  the  Federal  Government — General  policy,  and 
political  economy,  controlled  by  Slavery 310 

CHAPTER  XXIX. 

Colonization  Society 341 

CHAPTER  XXX. 

Abolition  of  Slavery  in  the  British  Colonies 353 

CHAPTER  XXXI. 

Distinctive  features  of  American  Slavery 377 

CHAPTER  XXXII. 

The  present  Anti-Slavery  Agitation  in  America — Its  causes,  origin,  and 

character 382 

' CHAPTER  XXXIII. 

Opposition  to  Abolitionists — Its  elements — Its  nature  and  methods 400 

CHAPTER  XXXIV. 

Attempts  to  silence  the  discussion  by  authority — State  Legislatures — 
Federal  Executive — U.  S.  Mails — “Gag”  Rules  in  Congress — 
Right  of  petition 408 


A ri 

£ O & U 6 * 


VI 


CONTENTS. 


CHAPTER  XXXV.  page. 

Opposition  from  leading  Clergy  and  Ecclesiastical  bodies 425 

CHAPTER  XXXVI. 

Persecutions  of  Abolitionists 434 


CHAPTER  XXXVII. 

Of  the  elements  and  occasions  of  division  among  Abolitionists.. 447 

CHAPTER  XXXVIII. 

Divisions  in  1839-40 457 

CHAPTER  XXXIX. 

Organized  political  action — Liberty  party — Liberty  League — Free  Soil 
party 468 

CHAPTER  XL. 

Anti-Slavery  Church  agitation — New  Anti-Slavery  Churches  and  Mis- 
sionary bodies . 487 

CHAPTER  XLI. 

The  Anti-Slavery  Societies — Their  relation  to  political  and  Church 
action 509 

CHAPTER  XLII. 

The  American  Anti-Slavery  Society — Its  further  course  on  political 
action 517 

CHAPTER  XLIII. 

Second  revolution  in  the  position  and  policy  of  the  American  Anti- 
Slavery  Society  in  1844  526 

CHAPTER  XLIV. 

Further  difficulties  in  the  American  Anti-Slavery  Society 529 

CHAPTER  XLV. 

Political  course  of  the  American  Anti-Slavery  Society,  since  its  revo- 
lution of  1844 532 

CPIAPTER  XLVI. 

Course  of  Mr.  Garrison  and  the  American  Anti-Slavery  Society  and 
its  members,  since  the  division  of  1840,  in  respect  to  Anti-Slavery 
Church  action 541 


CHAPTER  XLVII. 

General  estimate  of  the  American  Anti-Slavery  Society  and  its  labors, 
since  1840 - 


555 


CONTENTS. 


vii 

CHAPTER  XLVIII.  page. 

Review  of  these  divisions  and  their  results 559 

CHAPTER  XLIX. 

■ Different  views  of  the  Constitution  and  of  the  legality  of  Slavery 563  ^ 

CHAPTER  L. 

V 

The  Slavery  question  in  America — and  the  Crisis — "Y\  hat  shall  be  done  1 583 


<r 


* 


. 


\ • 


OBJECT  AND  PLAN  OF  THIS  BOOK. 


The  chief  design  of  this  publication  is  to  furnish,  in  one  volume,  an 
abstract,  for  convenient  reference,  of  a great  mass  of  historical  informa- 
tion concerning  slavery  and  the  struggle  against  it  (in  this  country  and 
Great  Britain),  that  is  now  to  he  found  only  ly  looking  over  several  volumes, 
numerous  pamphlets,  and  the  newspapers  and  scattered  documents  of  the 
last  twenty  years.  This  abstract,  at  the  same  time,  was  intended  to  have 
a bearing  on  the  now-pending  slave  question  in  the  United  States,  and  to  be 
so  selected  and  arranged,  as  to  facilitate  a presentation  of  that  question 
towards  the  close  of  the  volume.  It  was  designed  to  be  as  documentary  in 
its  character  as  the  nature  of  an  abstract  would  permit.  Hence,  it  consists 
much  in  extracts,  quotations,  and  abbreviated  paragraphs,  preserving  as 
much  83  possible  the  significant  portions,  without  giving  the  documents 
entire,  which  would  have  required  volumes. 

The  writer  was  aware  that  the  attempt  to  cover  so  much  ground,  in  one 
volume,  was  a hazardous  one.  It  could  not  be  a small  volume  ; and  most 
readers,  as  well  as  some  critics,  will  instantly  pronounce  a work  “ too 
diffuse"  that  exceeds  three  or  four  hundred  pages,  without  stopping  to 
consider  whether  or  no  it  presents  the  substance  of  several  such  volumes  on 
distinct  points  of  history.  They  would  find  no  fault  with  one  book  of  that 
size  that  should  only  tell  the  story  of  the  abolition  of  the  African  slave 
trade,  nor  with  another  that  should  only  relate  the  measures  that- led  to  the 
abolition  of  slavery  in  the  British  West  Indies,  and  the  results  of  those 
labors ; nor  with  another  that  should  contain  the  story  of  Texas  and  the 
Mexican  war.  But  if  a writer  should  present  the  substance  of  all  three 
of  these  histories,  and  five  or  six  more  in  addition,  of  equal  magnitude  and 
importance,  in  a volume  of  six  hundred  pages,  they  would  think  him  un- 
pardonably  diffuse ; and  the  farther  this  condensing  process  was  carried,  in 
one  volume,  the  more  would  he  fall  under  censure  for  diffuseness.  The 


X 


OBJECT  AND  PLAN. 


difficulty  would  not  end  here.  The  same  readers,  or  others,  on  referring  to 
the  parts  of  the  history  that  most  interested  them,  would  fail  of  obtaining 
all  the  minute  information  they  expected,  or  would  wonder  at  the  omission 
of  many  things  that  they  considered  important.  Whether,  on  the  whole, 
the  work  will  be  found  too  much  or  too  little  condensed,  is  uncertain.  If 
the  latter,  we  may  hereafter  furnish  a cheaper  abridgment  of  it : if  the 
former,  the  present  edition  may  hereafter  take  the  name  of  an  abridgment 
to  the  more  copious  work  that  may  be  written,  and  for  which  there  are 
ample  materials  at  hand. 

The  writer  has  not  wholly  excluded  from  this  volume  all  notice  of  the 
principles  that  underlie  history,  nor  of  the  workings  of  moral  cause  and 
effect.  Nor  has  he  suppressed  his  own  sentiments,  through  fear  of  giving 
offense.  He  hopes  he  has  not  been  uncandid  or  discourteous  to  others. 

No  reasonable  pains  have  been  spared  to  secure  accuracy  in  dates  and 
facts ; and  yet  it  is  quite  impossible  to  be  certain  of  freedom  from  errors. 
In  some  cases,  the  best  authorities  disagree.  Apparent  or  real  discrepan- 
cies and  mistakes  are  incident  to  all  histories.  Biblical  critics  are  not 
always  agreed  in  respect  to  the  true  solution  of  apparent  discrepancies  in 
the  inspired  writers  of  history.  In  preparing  this  book,  several  instances 
have  occurred  in  which  good  authorities  have  seemed  to  make  irreconcilable 
statements,  but  which  have,  nevertheless,  with  much  labor,  been  reconciled. 
Few  of  the  books  or  pamphlets  used  by  us  have  been  free  from  real  or 
apparent  mistakes  that  have  perplexed  us.  We  hope  we  shall  not  be 
accounted  careless  of  our  facts,  if  some  of  them  should  be  found  inaccurate, 
or  should  be,  by  somebody,  considered  so.  We  trust  the  book  is  as  free 
from  mistakes  as  most  other  works  of  the  kind.  We  are  certain  of  having 
laboriously  collected  and  carefully  examined  the  statements  presented,  but, 
like  others  who  compile  histories,  we  cannot  be  held  responsible  for  the  mis- 
takes of  the  best  authorities  extant.. 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM 


CHAPTER  I. 

MAGNITUDE  AND  NECESSITY  OF  THE  STRUGGLE. 

A World’s  Question — The  Problem  of  the  Present  Age. 

The  slave  question  in  America  is  only  one  phase  of  the 
more  comprehensive  question  of  human  freedom  that  now 
begins  to  agitate  the  civilized  world,  and  that  presents  the 
grand  problem  of  the  present  age. 

Such  a question  must  be  met,  must  be  discussed,  must  be 
decided,  and  decided  correctly,  before  the  nations  of  the  earth 
can  be  enfranchised,  and  before  this  anomalous  republic  can 
e'ither  secure  her  own  liberties,  or  find  permanent  repose. 

In  a nation  whose  declaration  of  self-evident  and  inalienable 
human  rights  has  been  hailed  as  the  watchword  for  an  univer- 
sal struggle  against  despotic  governments ; — a nation  whose 
support  of  human  chattelhood  has  armed  the  world’s  despots 
with  their  most  plausible  pleas  against  republican  institutions, 
it  is  in  vain  to  expect  that  the  discussion  of  such  incongruities 
can  be  smothered,  or  the  adjustment  of  them  much  longer 
postponed.  In  any  age  of  the  world,  such  expectations  would 
be  disappointed — in  the  present  age,  the  indulgence  of  them 
can  be  little  short  of  insanity — must  be  consummate  folly. 
The  question  whether  such  a nation,  at  such  a period  of  the 
world’s  progress,  shall  continue  to  tolerate  human  chattel- 
hood,  becomes,  of  necessity,  a world’s  question.  Universal 
human  nature  is  knocking  vehemently  at  our  doors,  and  can- 
not be  silenced.  As  well  might  we  attempt  to  liush  the  thun- 

1 


2 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


ders  of  our  own  Niagara,  or  annul  the  laws  by  which  the 
elements  are  governed. 

Is  this  the  language  of  enthusiasm?  Ask  counsel  of  exist- 
ing  facts.  When  a few  voices  were  raised  on  this  subject  not 
many  years  since,  the  whole  community,  with  few  exceptions, 
north  and  south,  demanded  that  the  agitation  should  cease. 
But  has  it  ceased?  Or  can  it  be  made  to  cease?  Most  for- 
ward and  even  clamorous  in  the  discussion,  are  those  who, 
even  now,  have  scarcely  ceased  to  proscribe  discussion!  Our 
halls  of  legislation,  that  were  to  have  been  sealed  against  the 
discussion,  nevertheless  ring  with  it,  to  the  exclusion  of  the 
most  favorite  topics  ! And  those  who  were  determined  that 
the  public  mails  should  not  transmit  the  agitating  debate,  are 
now  gorging  those  mails  to  the  full  with  their  own  eager  de- 
bates ! Not  an  important  public  measure  can  be  proposed 
that  is  not  found  to  involve,  in  some  way,  the  much  dreaded 
but  ever  present  question.  Can  we  not  see  the  hand  of  an 
all-controlling  Providence  in  all  this?  Can  we  not  hear  in  it 
the  voice  of  Nature  and  of  Nature’s  God,  demanding  and 
ordaining  a discussion  of  the  slave  question? 

The  history  of  Christian  civilization  is  marked  with  suc- 
cessive eras  of  advancement,  each  one  of  which  is  distinguished 
by  some  particular  phase  or  feature  of  human  progress,  and 
commonly  involves  the  agitation  of  some  great  practical  pro- 
blem, the  solution  of  which  occupies  the  minds  of  thinking 
men  until  it  is  definitely  settled.  This  is  seldom  effected  with- 
out long  and  earnest  discussions,  sometimes  protracted  during 
one  or  two  entire  generations,  and  not  completed  until  more 
enlarged  views  have  displaced  the  prejudices  and  corrected 
the  errors  that  preceded  them.  The  responsibilities,  as  well 
as  the  dangers  and  the  privileges  of  living  in  such  an  age  of 
the  world — stormy,  perhaps,  yet  progressive — are  not  com- 
monly appreciated  as  they  should  be.  Not  to  have  under- 
stood, correctly,  the  wants,  and  especially  the  grand  problem 
of  such  an  age,  of  the  age  one  lives  in,  not  to  have  taken  the 
position,  and  to  have  exerted  the  influence  demanded  by  the 
crisis,  were  equivalent  to  having  wasted,  or  worse  than  wasted, 


SLAVERY  AYD  FREEDOM. 


8 


one’s  probationary  existence,  so  far  as  its  bearing  on  general 
human  progress  is  concerned ; and  this,  too,  at  a time  when 
one  life  is  to  be  reckoned  of  more  weight  and  significance 
than,  perhaps,  many  lives,  dreamed  away  in  any  of  those 
dead  calms  in  this  world’s  history,  in  which  little  or  nothing 
is  done  or  devised  for  the  elevation  of  the  species. 

Such  ail  age  of  agitation  and  of  corresponding  respon- 
sibility is  the  present.  The  grand  problem  of  the  age  is 
that  of  a more  extended  and  better  defined  freedom,  espe- 
cially for  the  very  lowest  and  most  degraded  portion  of  the 
species.  Ours  is  an  advanced  period  in  the  struggle  for 
human  freedom.  It  is  not  to  the  contest  of  the  barons 
against  an  unlimited  autocrat  that  we  are  summoned — nor  to 
the  struggle  of  the  middle  classes  against  the  barons ; nor  to 
the  question  of  taxation  without  representation ; nor  to  the 
question  of  religious  liberty,  for  those  who  are  regarded  as 
human  beings.  The  demands  of  liberty  strike  deeper,  now, 
and  reach  the  ground  tier  of  humanity,  hid  under  the  rubbish 
of  centuries  of  degradation — classes  -who  have  scarcely  been 
thought  of,  as  human,  and  to  whom  no  Magna  Charta  of 
Runny  Meade,  no  organization  of  a House  of  Commons,  no 
Declaration  of  Independence,  have  brought  even  a tithe  or  a 
foretaste  of  their  promised  blessings.  The  houseless,  the 
landless,  the  homeless — the  operatives  of  Manchester  and 
Birmingham,  the  tenantry  of  Ireland,  the  Russian  serfs, — 
above  all,  the  North  American  Slaves — what  have  Christian 
civilization  and  democratic  liberty  and  equality  in  reserve  for 
these  ? And  what  are  the  responsibilities  of  Christians,  of 
philanthropists,  of  statesmen,  and  of  republican  citizens,  in 
respect  to  them  ? These  questions  to  be  properly  decided, 
must  be  studied,  must  be  understood. 

Me  single  out,  for  present  inquiry,  the  North  American 
slave.  Who  is  he  ? What  is  his  condition  ? How  came  he 
there  ? Who  is  responsible  for  his  continuance  in  his  present 
condition?  What  has  been  done,  and  what  remains  to  be 
done  in  respect  to  him  ? 


4 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN' 


CHAPTER  II. 

ORIGIN  OF  THE  MODERN  SLAVE  TRADE  AND  SLAVERY. 

The  Portuguese — The  Spaniards— Charles  V. — Ferdinand  V. — The  Hollanders,  the 
Danes,  the  French,  the  English — Queen  Elizabeth,  John  Hawkins,  Louis  XIII.  of 
France — Act  of  George  II. — Prohibition  of  Violence — Barbarity  of  the  Traffic — 
Statistics — Imports  into  Jamaica. 

“ In  the  year  1442,  while  the  Portuguese,  under  the  encouragement  of 
their  celebrated  Prince  Henry,  were  exploring  the  coast  of  Africa,  Anthony 
Gonzalez,  who,  two  years  before,  had  seized  some  Moors,  near  Cape  Bada- 
jor,  was,  by  that  prince,  ordered  to  carry  his  prisoners  back  to  Africa.  He 
landed  them  at  Rio  del  Oro,  and  received  from  the  Moors  in  exchange,  ten 
blacks  and  a quantity  of  gold  dust,  with  which  he  returned  to  Lisbon.” — 
Edwards'  History  of  the  West  Indies,  Vol.  II.,  p.  37. 

“ This  new  kind  of  commerce,  appearing  to  be  a profitable  speculation, 
others,  of  the  same  nation,  soon  embarked  in  it.” — Godwin's  Lectures  on 
Slavery,  p.  184.  ( American  Edition .) 

The  Spaniards,  on  taking  possession  of  the  West  India 
islands,  compelled  the  native  Charibs  (or  Caribs,)  to  work  the 
mines  of  Hispaniola.  In  these  and  other  exhausting  labors, 
that  feeble  race  became  well  nigh  extinct,*  and  their  place 
was  supplied  bj  importations  of  a hardier  race  from  Africa. 
The  infamy  of  having  first  projected  this  expedient  has  com- 
monly rested  on  Las  Casas , a priest  much  hated  among  the 
colonists  for  his  uncompromising  opposition  to  the  ill  treat- 
ment of  the  Charibs,  whom  he  is  represented  as  seeking  to 


' * “Down  to  the  dust  the  Charib  people  passed, 

Like  autumn  foliage  withering  in  the  blast ; 

A whole  race  sunk  beneath  the  oppressor’s  rod, 
And  left  a blank  among  the  works  of  God.” 

Montgomery's  West  Indies. 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


5 


relieve  at  the  expense  of  the  Africans.*  With  more  proba- 
bility, the  crime  has  been  charged  on  Chievres  and  the  Flemish 
nobility,  who  obtained  a monopoly  of  the  traffic  from  Charles 
V.,  and  sold  it  for  25,000  ducats  to  some  Genoese  merchants, 
who  first  commenced,  in  a regular  form,  the  commerce  in 
slaves  that,  with  little  intermission,  has  been  continued  ever 
since. 

“ As  early  as  1503,”  according  to  Clarkson,  “ a few  slaves 
were  sent  by  the  Portuguese  to  the  Spanish  colonies.” 

In  1511,  Ferdinand  Y.  of  Spain,  is  said  to  have  permitted 
an  importation  of  Negroes  into  the  colonies.  But  while  Car- 
dinal Nimenes  held  the  reins  of  government,  and  until  the 
accession  of  Charles  Y.  of  Spain,  he  steadily  refused  to  allow 
such  a detestable  commerce.  Yide  Godwin,  p.  181. 

It  was  in  1517  that  Charles  Y.,  (who  was  sovereign  of  Ger- 
many, and  of  the  Netherlands,)  granted  the  exclusive  patent 
before  mentioned,  to  one  or  more  of  the  Flemish  nobility,  to 
import  four  thousand  Africans  annually,  for  the  supply  of 
Hispaniola,  Cuba,  Jamaica,  and  Porto  Rico. 

“This  great  prince  was  not,  in  all  probability,  aware  of  the  dreadful  evils 
attending  this  horrible  traffic,  nor  of  the  crying  injustice  of  permitting  it ; 
for  in  1542,  when  he  made  a code  of  laws  for  his  Indian  subjects,  he  liber- 
ated all  the  Negroes,  and  by  a word  put  an  end  to  their  slavery.  When, 
however,  he  resigned  his  crown  and  retired  into  a monastery,  and  his  minis- 
ter of  mercy,  Pedro  de  la  Gasca,  returned  to  Spain,  the  imperious  tyrants 
of  these  new  dominions  returned  to  their  former  practices,  and  fastened  the 
yoke  on  the  suffering  and  unresisting  Negroes.” — Godwin,  p.  185.  See 
also  Clarkson's  History , pp.  28,  29. 

The  slave  trade  was  prosecuted  by  the  Portuguese,  the 

* Robertson,  in  his  History  of  America,  takes  up  and  somewhat  exaggerates 
this  statement,  on  the  authority  of  Herrera , an  enemy  of  Las  Casas,  whose  charge 
was  first  published  35  years  after  the  philanthropist’s  decease.  The  previous 
writers  make  no  mention  of  Las  Casas  in  such  a connection,  though  avowedly  his 
enemies.  The  writings  of  Las  Casas  abound  in  denunciations  against  slavery ; and 
from  the  language  of  Herrera  himself,  it  would  not  conclusively  appear  that  Las 
Casas  designed  to  have  the  Africans  imported  by  compulsion,  or  held  as  slaves. — Vide 
the  Able  Gregoire's  Defence  of  Las  Casas,  approved  by  James  Montgomery  in  a 
note  to  his  poem,  uThe  West  Indies."  See  also  Stuart's  Memoir  of  Sharp,  page  29 ; 
and  preface  to  Clarkson's  Essay  on  the  Slavery  and  Commerce  of  the  Human  Species. 


6 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


Spaniards,  the  Hollanders,  the  Danes,  the  French,  the  British, 
the  Anglo-Americans,  including  the  colonists  of  New  Eng- 
land. 


BEGINNING  OF  THE  SLAVE  TRADE  BY  THE  ENGLISH. 

The  first  importation  of  Slaves  from  Africa  by  Englishmen  was  in  the 
reign  of  Elizabeth,  in  the  year  1562.  This  great  princess  seems,  on  the 
very  commencement  of  the  trade,  to  have  questioned  its  lawfulness.  She 
seems  to  have  entertained  a religious  scruple  concerning  it,  and,  indeed,  to 
have  revolted  at  the  very  thought  of  it.  She  seems  to  have  been  aware  of 
the  evils  to  which  its  continuance  might  lead,  or  that,  if  it  were  sanctioned, 
the  most  unjustifiable  means  might  be  made  use  of,  to  procure  the  persons 
of  the  natives  of  Africa.  And  in  what  light  she  would  have  viewed  any 
acts  of  this  kind,  had  they  taken  place,  we  may  conjecture  from  this  fact ; 
that  when  Captain  (afterwards  Sir  John)  Hawkins  returned  from  his  first 
voyage  to  Africa  and  Hispaniola,  whither  he  had  carried  slaves,  she  sent  for 
him,  and,  as  we  learn  from  Hill’s  Naval  History,  expressed  her  concern  lest 
any  of  the  Africans  should  be  carried  off  without  their  free  consent,  declar- 
ing that  ‘ it  would  be  detestable,  and  call  down  Heaven’s  vengeance  upon 
the  undertakers.’  Captain  Hawkins  promised  to  comply  with  the  injunc- 
tions of  Elizabeth  in  this  respect.  But  he  did  not  keep  his  word,  for  when 
he  went  to  Africa  again,  he  seized  many  of  the  inhabitants,  and  carried 
them  off  as  slaves,  which  occasioned  Hill,  in  the  account  he  gives  of  his 
second  voyage,  to  use  these  remarkable  words : ‘ Here  began  the  horrid 
practice  of  forcing  the  Africans  into  slavery,  an  injustice  and  barbarity 
which,  so  sure  as  there  is  vengeance  in  heaven  for  the  worst  of  crimes,  will 
sometime  be  the  destruction  of  all  who  encourage  it.’  That  the  trade  should 
have  been  suffered  to  continue  under  such  a princess,  and  after  such  solemn 
expressions  as  those  which  she  has  been  described  to  have  uttered,  can  only 
be  attributed  to  the  pains  taken  by  those  concerned  to  keep  her  ignorant  of 
the  truth.” — Clarkson,  p.  30. 

It  may  be  proper  to  notice  tbe  view  taken  of  this  beginning 
of  the  slave  trade  and  slavery  in  the  British  dominions  by  a 
writer  decidedly  averse  to  the  abolition  of  the  slave  trade : 

“ In  regard  to  Hawkins,  himself,  he  was,  I admit,  a murderer  and  a 
robber.  His  avowed  purpose,  in  sailing  to  Guinea,  was  to  take,  by  strata- 
gem or  force,  and  carry  away  the  unsuspecting  natives,  in  the  view  of  selling 
them  as  slaves  to  the  people  of  Hispaniola.  In  this  pursuit,  his  object  was 
present  profit,  and  his  employment  and  pastime  devastation  and  murder.” — • 
Edwards'  History  of  the  West  Indies,  Arol.  II.,  pp.  43-4. 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


7 


This  authentic  account  of  the  origin  of  British  Colonial 
slavery  is  worthy  of  profound  study,  and,  in  connection  with 
other  facts  that  may  be  presented,  suggests  thoughts  that  may 
have  a decisive  bearing  upon  the  now  pending  slave  question 
in  America,  in  more  aspects  than  one. 

It  is  common  to  cast  all  the  odium  of  slavery  upon  our 
fathers,  and  upon  the  governments  that  first  permitted  the 
slave  trade.  Could  the  dead  rise  up  and  plead  their  own 
cause,  they  might  perhaps  retort  that  they  had  no  idea  of 
lending  their  sanction  to  the  system  of  American  slavery,  as 
now  practiced.  Queen  Elizabeth  permitted  the  Africans  to  be 
carried  into  the  colonies  with  their  own  consent,  but  they 
were  taken  and  are  held  by  force.  Louis  XIII.  of  France 
was  very  uneasy,  when  about  to  sanction  the  importation  of 
Africans  into  his  colonies,  until  assured  that  they  were  to  be 
educated  in  the  Christian  religion.*  What  would  he  say  to 
the  laws  that  forbid  their  Christian  education  ? And  what 
would  he  think  of  the  statement  that  the  colored  people  of 
America  “ must  be  colonized  back  to  Africa,”  (a  country  they 
never  saw),  before  they  can  be  christianized  ? 

If  one  monarch  who  authorized  the  importation  of  Africans 
into  his  American  Colonies  directed  the  liberation  of  the  vic- 
tims when  he  learned  by  what  means  and  for  what  purposes 
they  were  imported — if  another  consented  to  the  importation 
only  on  condition  that  they  should  be  educated  in  the  Chris- 
tian religion — and  if  another  only  permitted  their  importation 
with  their  own  free  consent,  (involving,  by  fair  implication, 
the  condition  of  their  voluntary  and  compensated  labor,)  the 
question  may  arise  whether  the  importation  originally  autho- 
rized was  indeed  that  African  slave  trade  that  actually  took 
place,  and  which  history  describes.  And  this  may  suggest 
the  question  how  far  the  usages  of  slavery,  as  they  now  exist, 
can  be  said  to  have  been  authorized  or  legalized  by  the  per- 
mission of  such  importations  as  were  contemplated  bjr  those 
monarchs.  Mr.  Clarkson,  who  seems  to  have  devoted  much 
attention  to  the  details  of  this  history,  considers  them  of  the 


* Vide  Clarkson. 


8 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


utmost  importance  to  a right  understanding  of  the  question 
respecting  the  legality  of  the  slave  trade  as  it  existed  while 
he  Avas  laboring  for  its  suppression.  He  demands  whether 
“ the  African  slave  trade  ever  would  have  been  permitted  to 
exist,  but  for  the  ignorance  of  those  in  authority  concerning 
it.”  And  he  affirms  that  the  “ trade  began  in  piracy,  and  Avas 
continued  upon  the  principles  of  force.”  (Pg.  31.) 

The  connivance,  rather  than  the  “ ignorance  of  those  in 
authority,”  appears  to  have  sheltered  this  execrable  traffic, 
after  the  times  of  Elizabeth.  Even  then  it  Avas  rather  toler- 
ated than  directly  authorized.  It  Avould  be  difficult,  perhaps, 
to  find  any  act  of  the  British  Parliament  by  which  the  slave 
trade  Avas  explicitly  legalized.  The  enactments  seem  to  insin- 
uate, or  faintly  imply,  that  the  negroes  imported  are  property, 
yet  they  studiously  avoid  to  acknoAvledge  them  distinctly,  or 
even  by  necessary  implication,  as  such.  In  the  act  of  10 
William  III.,  chap.  26,  entitled  an  “Act  to  settle  the  trade  to 
Africa,”  the  negroes  are  not  called  slaves.  In  the  act  of  23 
George  II.,  chap.  31  (1749-50),  entitled  “An  Act  for  extend- 
ing and  improving  the  trade  to  Africa,”  it  was  provided  (sect. 
29)  that  “ no  commander  or  master  of  any  ship  trading  to 
Africa  shall  by  fraud , force , or  violence , or  by  any  other  indi- 
rect practice  Avhatsoever,  take  on  board,  or  carry  away  from 
the  coast  of  Africa,  any  negro  or  native  of  the  said  country, 
or  commit,  or  suffer  to  be  committed,  any  violence  on  the 
natives,  to  the  prejudice  of  said  trade.”*  The  28th  section 
of  the  same  act  did  indeed  recognize  the  holding  of  “slaves” 
at  the  station  of  the  Trading  Company  in  Africa,  yet  it  gave 
no  authority  to  transport  slaves  to  America  or  elsewhere. 
Undoubtedly  the  secret  design  was  to  stimulate  the  slave  trade. 
But  a sense  of  shame,  and  a consciousness  of  Avrong-doing, 
prevented  the  Parliament  from  employing  the  terms  Avhich, 
upon  a strict  legal  construction,  could  give  to  that  feature  of 
the  African  trade  the  shelter  of  valid  law.  [Vide  Spooner, 
pp.  29-35.] 

* Mr.  Pitt’s  view  of  this  statute,  and  of  the  legality  of  the  slave  trade,  will  be 
presented  in  the  proper  place. 


SLAVERY  AXD  FREEDOM. 


9 


Thus  stealthily  and  almost  imperceptibly  was  the  idea  of 
legalized  human  chattelhood  introduced.  Thus  ambiguous 
and  tortuous  were  the  enactments  under  cover  of  which  the 
slave  traffic  was  prosecuted.  A graphic  and  truthful  descrip- 
tion of  that  traffic  we  present  in  the  language  of  Hon.  Horace 
Mann,  of  Massachusetts.* 

“ One  wants  the  plain,  sinewy,  Saxon  tongue,  to  tell  of  deeds  that  should 
have  shamed  devils.  Great  Britain  was  the  mother.  Her  American  Colo- 
nies were  the  daughter.  The  mother  lusted  for  gold.  To  get  it,  she  made 
partnership  with  robbery  and  death.  Shackles,  chains,  and  weapons  for 
human  butchery,  were  her  outfit  in  trade.  She  made  Africa  her  hunting 
ground.  She  made  its  people  her  prey,  and  the  unwilling  colonies  her  mar- 
ket-place. She  broke  into  the  Ethiop’s  home,  as  a wolf  into  a sheep-fold 
at  midnight.  She  set  the  continent  aflame,  that  she  might  seize  the 
affrighted  inhabitants  as  they  ran  shrieking  from  their  blazing  hamlets. 
The  aged  and  the  infant  she  left  to  the  vultures,  but  the  strong  men  and  the 
strong  women  she  drove,  scourged  and  bleeding,  to  the  shore.  Packed  and 
stowed  like  merchandise  between  unventilated  decks,  so  close  that  the 
tempest  without  could  not  ruffle  the  pestilential  air  within,  the  voyage  was 
begun.  Once  a day  the  hatches  were  opened,  to  receive  food  and  disgorge 
the  dead.  Thousands  and  thousands  of  corpses  which  she  plunged  into  the 
ocean  from  the  decks  of  her  slave  ships,  she  counted  only  as  the  tare  of  her 
commerce.  The  blue  monsters  of  the  deep  became  familiar  with  her  path- 
way ; and,  not  more  remorseless  than  she,  they  shared  her  plunder.  At 
length  the  accursed  vessel  reached  the  foreign  shore.  And  there,  the  mon- 
sters of  the  land,  fiercer  and  feller  than  any  that  roam  the  watery  plains, 
rewarded  the  robber  by  purchasing  his  spoils.  For  more  than  a century  did 
the  madness  of  this  traffic  rage.f  During  all  those  years  the  clock  of 
eternity  never  counted  out  a minute  that  did  not  witness  the  cruel  death  by 
treachery  or  violence  of  some  father  or  mother  of  Africa.” 

“ Mr.  Edwards  says  that  from  1700  to  1786,  the  number  imported  into 
Jamaica  was  610,000.  ‘ I say  this,’  he  observes,  ‘ on  sufficient  evidence, 

having  in  my  possession  lists  of  all  the  entries.’  ‘ The  'total  import  into 
all  the  British  Colonies  from  1680  to  1786  may  be  put  down  at  2,130,000.’ 
In  1771,  which  he  considers  the  most  flourishing  period  of  the  trade,  there 
sailed  from  England  to  the  coast  of  Africa,  one  hundred  and  ninety-two 
ships,  provided  for  the  importation  of  47,146  negroes.  ‘ And  now,’  he 
observes,  (1793)  ‘ the  whole  number  annually  exported  from  Africa  by  all 
the  European  powers,  is  74,000,  of  which  38,000  are  imported  by  the 
British.” — Godwin , page  187. 

* Speech  in  the  House  of  Representatives  of  the  U.  S.,  June  30,  1848. 

tit  has  not  ceased.  It  rages  with  violence  still,  as  will  he  shown  in  another 
chapter. 


10 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN" 


# 


CHAPTER  III. 

SLAYERY  AND  THE  SLAVE  TRADE  IN  THE  BRITISH  COLONIES 
IN  NORTH  AMERICA,  NOW  THE  UNITED  STATES. 

Slavers  from  New  England — Slavery  in  Massachusetts,  Connecticut,  Rhode  Island, 
Maryland,  Virginia,  and  the  Carolines — Condition  of  the  Slaves — Testimony  of 
Wesley  and  Whitefield — Inquiry  into  the  legal  foundation  of  Colonial  Slavery — 
Complaints  of  the  Colonies  against  the  King  of  Great  Britain,  for  favoring  the 
traffic — Paradoxes — Absence  of  English  Statutes  legalizing  Slavery — Common 
Law — Lord  Mansfield — Colonial  Charters — Slavery  introduced  in  absence  of  Colo- 
nial enactments — Date  and  circumstances  of  introduction  of  Slavery  into  Virginia, 
South  Carolina,  and  Georgia — Prohibition  of  Slavery  in  Georgia,  (Gen.  Ogel- 
tliorpe) — Dates  of  early  enactments  concerning  Slavery  in  Virginia,  N.  Carolina, 
S.  Carolina,  Georgia,  and  Maryland — Loose  and  vague  character  of  these  enact- 
ments. 


Soon  after  the  settlement  of  the  British  North  American 
Colonies,  Africans  were  imported  into  them,  and  sold  and 
held  as  slaves.  Of  the  extent  of  these  importations  we  have 
met  with  no  authenticated  statistics.  The  whole  number  of 
slaves  in  these  states,  by  the  first  census  under  the  present 
Constitution,  1790,  was  697,697. 

The  colonies  now  known  as  the  Southern  or  slave  states,  on 
the  Atlantic  coast,  received  the  principal  share  of  these  im- 
portations. The  middle  and  eastern  colonies  received  com- 
paratively few,  and  these  chiefly  for  domestic  servants  in  the 
cities,  and  in  the  families  of  professional  gentlemen  in  the 
interior.  As  the  soil  was  not  adapted  to  slave  culture,  and 
was  owned  in  small  farms  by  a hardy  race  of  agriculturists, 
inured  to  habits  of  labor,  the  process  of  cultivation  by  slaves 
never  obtained,  particularly  in  New  England,  except  to  a 
very  limited  extent.  In  New  York,  first  settled  by  the  Dutch, 
in  New  Jersey,  and  perhaps  in  some  portions  of  Pennsyl- 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


11 


vania,  the  labor  of  slaves  was  introduced  to  a' greater  extent 
than  further  east.  But  in  the  importation  of  slaves  for  the 
southern  colonies,  the  merchants  of  the  New  England  sea- 
ports competed  with  those  of  New  York  and  the  South. 
They  appear,  indeed,  to  have  outstripped  them,  and  to  have 
almost  monopolized,  at  one  time,  the  immense  profits  of  that 
lucrative  but  detestable  trade.  Boston,  Salem,  and  Newbury- 
port,  in  Massachusetts,  and  Newport  and  Bristol  in  Rhode 
Island,  amassed,  in  the  persons  of  a few  of  their  citizens,  vast 
sums  of  this  rapidly  acquired  and  ill  gotten  wealth,  which, 
in  many  instances,  quite  as  rapidly  and  very  remarkably,  took 
to  itself  wings  and  flew  away.  In  some  cases,  however,  it 
remained,  and  formed  the  basis  of  the  capital  of  some  promi- 
nent mercantile  houses,  almost  or  quite  down  to  the  present 
time.  Citizens,  honored  with  high  posts  of  office  in  the  State 
and  Federal  Governments,  have  owed  their  rank  in  society, 
and  their  political  elevation,  to  the  wealth  thus  acquired, 
sometimes  thus  acquired  by  themselves,  since  the  colonies  be- 
came states,  and  while  the  traffic  was  tolerated  as  it  was,  till 
the  year  1808.  Among  these  was  a late  Senator  in  Congress, 
from  Rhode  Island,  James  I) ’Wolf,  who,  at  the  time,  was 
reputed  to  be  the  owner  of  a large  slave  plantation  in  Cuba. 
Such  incidents  may  convey  som^  idea  of  the  influence  of  the 
traffic  in  New  England,  even  to  the  present  day.  The  former 
seats  of  the  traffic  are  still  the  centers  of  influences  hostile  to 
the  agitation  of  the  slave  question. 

The  servitude  of  domestic  slaves,  in  families,  is  known  to 
be  less  intolerable  than  that  of  slaves  on  plantations.  From 
this  consideration,  and  from  the  limited  extent  of  slavery  in 
the  northern  and  eastern  colonies,  it  may  be  inferred  that  the 
slavery  of  that  region  was  of  a comparatively  mild  type. 
And  yet  we  find  sufficient  evidence  of  its  affinity,  in  many 
respects,  with  the  present  American  slave  system.  Not  even 
in  Connecticut  was  there  any  recognition  of  the  legality  and 
validity  of  a slave’s  marriage.*  A master’s  inadvertent  con- 


* According  to  Judge  Reeve,  however,  as  quoted  by  Stroud,  the  murder  of  a 
slave  was  held  in  Connecticut  to  he  the  same  as  the  murder  of  a freeman.  The 


12 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


sent  to  the  marriage  of  his  female  slave  to  a free  colored 
man,  was  held  to  he  equivalent  to  her  manumission,  because 


master  could  be  sued  by  the  slave  for  immoderate  chastisement ; the  slave  could 
hold  property,  in  the  character  of  a devisee  or  legatee,  and  the  master  could  not 
take  away  such  property,  or  might  be  sued  for  it  on  behalf  of  the  slave  by  his  next 
friend.— Reeve's  Law  of  Baron  and  Femme , &c.,  340-1  ; Stroud,  p.  24. 

In  Massachusetts,  too,  “ if  the  master  was  guilty  of  a cruel  or  unreasonable  casti- 
gation of  the  slave,  he  was  liable  to  be  punished  for  a breach  of  the  peace , and,  I 
believe,  the  slave  was  allowed  to  demand  sureties  of  the  peace  against  a violent  and 
barbarous  master.” — Opinion  of  Chief  Justice  Parsons , case  of  lYhichendon  vs. 
Hatfield , Mass.  Rep.,  127-8,  cited  by  Stroud , p.  23. 

In  Massachusetts  colony,  in  1641,  the  following  law  was  enacted  : “ It  is  ordered 
by  this  court  and  the  authority  thereof,  that  there  shall  never  be  any  bond  slavery, 
villeinage,  or  captivity  among  us,  unless  it  be  lawful  captives  taken  in  just  war, 
(such)  as  willingly  sell  themselves  or  are  sold  to  us,  and  such  shall  have  the  liberties 
and  Christian  usage  which  the  law  of' God  established  in  Israel  concerning  such 
persons  doth  morally  require.” — See  General  Laws  and  Liberties  of  Massachusetts 
Bay , chap.  12,  sect.  2 ; Stroud , p.  23. 

Whether  this  act  prohibited , or  whether  it  authorized  such  slavery  as  afterwards 
actually  existed  in  the  colony  of  Massachusetts,  might  not  be  very  difficult  to  deter- 
mine. It  certainly  prohibited  such  slavery  as  now  exists  at  the  South. 

There  is  little  doubt  that  slavery  was  introduced  into  Boston,  by  one  Maverick, 
precious  to  its  settlement  by  George  Winthrop  and  others,  in  1630.  There  is  no 
evidence  that  Maverick  was  a Puritan.  The  Boston  colonists,  generally,  were  not 
Puritans,  and  ought  never  to  have  been  confounded  with  them  by  historians.  Tho. 
Puritans,  with  all  their  defects  and  errors  on  this  and  other  subjects,  “ made  a wide 
distinction  between  those  who  were  stolen  and  seized  by  the  violence  of  the  slavers, 
and  those  who”  (as  they  supposed)  “had  been  made  captives  in  a lawful  war,  or 
were  reduced  to  servitude  for  their  crimes  by  a judicial  sentence.” 

This  sentiment  became  current  in  tFe  New  England  colonies.  “ An  express  law 
was  made,  prohibiting  the  buying  and  selling  of  tho  former,  while  the  latter  were  to 
have  the  same  privileges  as  were  allowed  by  the  laws  of  Moses.”  “ In  November, 
1646,  the  General  Court  of  Massachusetts  passed  a law  against  man-stealing,  making 
it  a capital  crime.  They  also  ordered  that  two  Africans,  forcibly  brought  into  tho 
colony,  should  be  sent  home  at  the  public  expense. — [Felt's  Annals  of  Salem .] 
The  other  colonies  soon  passed  a law  similar  to  that  of  Massachusetts.  The  Con- 
necticut Code,  prepared  in  1650,  has  the  following  section  : 1 If  any  man  stealeth  a 
man  or  raankinde,  he  shall  be  put  to  death.’  The  New  Haven  Code,  printed  in 
London  in  1656,  contains  a similar  article  : ‘ If  any  person  steale  a man,  or  mankind, 
that  person  shall  surely  be  put  to  death.’  The  Plymouth  laws  probably  made  man- 
stealing a capital  offence.”— [Nee  First  Annual  Report  of  the  New  Hampshire  Anti- 
Slavery  Society,  penned  by  the  late  John  Farmer,  Esq.,  and  published  in  the  “ Monthly 
Emancipator ,”  for  August,  1835.] 

In  all  this  we  see  the  stealthy  and  deceptive  introduction  of  chattel  slavery.  The 
early  laws  did  not  authorize,  but  prohibited  such  slavery  ns  was  actually  introduced  ! 
The  sin,  the  shame,  and  the  curse  would  have  been  excluded,  had  it  been  clearly 
understood  that  slavery  is  malum  in  se. 

The  action  of  the  colony  of  Rhode  Island  and  Providence  Plantations,  eleven 
years  later  than  that  in  Massachusetts,  was  more  direct  and  explicit.  The  following 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


13 


a slave  could  not  be  married,  and  because  a husband  could 
claim  the  assistance  of  his  wife. 

A still  more  discreditable  illustration  was  previously  fur- 
nished by  a rural  pastor  in  the  same  colony,  the  owner  of 
a male  and  female  slave.  Having  admitted  them  both  to 
the  communion  of  his  church  (Congregational)  as  members, 
and  having  himself  officially  pronounced  them  husband  and 
wife,  he  afterwards  separated  them  forever  by  the  sale  of 
the  wife  to  a distant  purchaser,  in  despite  of  the  entreaties 
of  both  wife  and  husband.  And  no  court  of  law,  no  church, 
no  ecclesiastical  body  interposed,  or  even  censured. 

In  Massachusetts,  another  Congregational  pastor,  of  high 
reputation,  is  said  to  have  reared  up  a female  slave  in  his 
family  in  a state  of  almost  absolute  heathenism,  and  never 
attempted  to  teach  her  the  alphabet. 

"When  it  is  remembered  that  a large  portion  of  the  min- 
isters of  religion  in  New  England  were  among  the  slave 


document  is  said  to  be  the  first  act  of  any  government  designed  to  prevent  enslaving 
the  negroes.  It  is  copied  from  the  records  of  the  colony  : 

“ At  a general  court  held  at  Warwick,  the  13th  of  May,  1652. 

“ Whereas,  there  is  a common  course  practised  among  Englishmen,  to  buy  ne- 
groes to  that  end  they  may  have  them  for  service  or  slaves  forever;  for  the  prevent- 
ing of  such  practices  among  us,  let  it  be  ordered,  That  no  black  mankind  or  white 
being  shall  be  forced,  by  covenant,  bond,  or  otherwise,  to  serve  any  man  or  his 
assignees  longer  than  ten  years,  or  until  they  come  to  be  twenty-four  years  of  age, 
if  they  be  taken  in  under  fourteen,  from  the  time  of  their  coming  within  the  liber- 
ties of  this  colony ; at  the  end  or  term  of  ten  years  to  set  them  free,  as  the  manner 
i3  with  the  English  servants.  And  that  man  that  will  not  let  them  go  free  or  shall 
sell  them  away  elsewhere,  to  that  end  they  may  be  enslaved  to  others  for  a longer 
time,  he  or  they  shall  forfeit  to  the  colony  forty  pounds.” 

To  the  credit  of  the  members  that  enacted  this  law,  we  subjoin  their  names  from 
the  record : 

“ The  general  officers  were,  John  Smith,  president ; Thomas  Olney,  general  assis- 
tant, from  Providence  ; Samuel  Gorton,  from  Warwick  ; John  Green,  general  re- 
corder; Randal  Holden,  treasurer;  Hugh  Bewett,  general  sergeant. 

“ The  commissioners  were  from  Providence — Robert  Williams,  Gregory  Dexter, 
Richard  Waterman,  Thomas  Harris,  William  Wickenden,  and  Hugh  Bewett;  from 
Warwick — Samuel  Gorton,  John  Wickes,  John  Smith,  Randal  Holden,  John  Green, 
jr.,  and  Ezekiel  Holliman.” 

The  prevalence  of  slavery  and  the  briskness  of  the  slave  trade  in  Rhode  Island, 
long  after  the  enactment  of  this  law  (which  does  not  appear  to  have  ever  been 
repealed),  furnishes  another  illustration  of  the  fact  that  slavery  grew  up  in  the 
colonies  in  violation  of  law. 


14 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


holding  class  of  the  community  during  the  colonial  state  of 
the  country,  and  many  of  them  still  later,  that  this  was 
within  fifty  or  sixty  years  of  the  beginning  of  the  anti- 
slavery agitation  in  1832,  and  that  many  of  the  present  min- 
isters of  New  England  are  the  sons  and  most  of  them  the 
successors,  of  slave  holding  ministers,  it  cannot  reasonably 
be  doubted  that  that  untoward  circumstance  has  had  a bear- 
ing upon  the  position  of  the  present  generation  of  ministers 
in  New  England,  in  respect  to  the  agitation  of  the  subject, 
and  especially  in  respect  to  the  doctrine  of  the  inherent 
sinfulness  of  slave  holding.  A similar  remark  might  be  made, 
with  perhaps  greater  force,  in  respect  to  New  Jersey,  and, 
to  a greater  or  less  extent,  in  respect  to  a great  part  of  the 
middle  states.  The  beginning  of  the  present  agitation,  in 
fact , found  slavery  existing,  to  a considerable  extent,  in  New 
Jersey,  and  the  influence  , of  that  fact  has  been  seen  and  felt, 
wherever  the  slave  question  has  been  discussed,  in  this 
country.* 

Slaveiy  in  the  now  Atlantic  slave  states  received,  substan- 
tially, its  present  complexion  during  the  colonial  period.  The 
most  important  enactments  on  the  subject  bear  date  previous 
to  the  Declaration  of  Independence. 

John  Wesley,  who  visited  this  country  during  this  period, 
characterizes  “ American  slavery  ” as  “ the  vilest  that  ever 
saw  the  sun.” 

George  Whitefield,  who  travelled  and  preached  extensively 
in  the  colonies,  has  drawn  a vivid  picture  of  the  treatment  of 
slaves  at  that  period.  This  testimony,  it  should  be  remem- 
bered, is  that  of  a devout  man,  whose  type  of  piety  is  not 
exposed  to  the  suspicion  of  tending  to  magnify,  unduly,  (as 
some  are  supposed  to  do)  the  physical  privations  and  suffer- 
ings of  slaves.  Nor  was  he  misled  into  any  exaggeration  by 
having  imbibed  the  sentiment  of  the  inherent  and  necessary 
criminality  of  slaveholding.  Such  a testimony  is  too  important 


* The  Biblical  defences  of  slaveholding,  sent  forth  from  the  seat  of  the  Theologi- 
cal Seminary  at  Princeton,  took  the  lead  of  any  thing  of  that  description  originating 
farther  South. 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


15 


to  be  omitted  in  this  place.  In  a “ Letter  to  the  inhabi- 
tants of  Maryland,  Virginia,  North  and  South  Carolina,”  in 
1739,  he  writes  as  follows: 

“ As  I lately  passed  through  your  provinces  on  my  way  hither,  I was 
sensibly  touched  with  a fellow-feeling  for  the  miseries  of  the  poor  negroes. 
Whether  it  be  lawful  for  Christians  to  buy  slaves,  and  thereby  encourage 
the  nations  from  whom  they  are  bought  to  be  at  perpetual  war  with  each 
other,  I shall  not  take  upon  me  to  determine.  Sure  I am  it  is  sinful,  when 
they  have  bought  them,  to  use  them  as  lad  as  though  they  ivere  brutes,  nay 
worse ; and  whatever  particular  exceptions  there  may  be  (as  I would  chari- 
tably hope  there  are  some),  I fear  the  generality  of  you,  who  own  negroes, 
are  liable  to  such  a charge  ; for  your  slaves,  I believe,  work  as  hard,  if  not 
harder,  than  the  horses  whereon  you  ride.  These,  after  they  have  done 
their  work,  are  fed,  and  taken  proper  care  of ; but  many  negroes,  when 
wearied  with  labor  in  your  plantations,  have  been  obliged  to  grind  their 
corn,  after  their  return  home.  Your  dogs  are  caressed  and  fondled  at  your 
table,  but  your  slaves,  who  are  frequently  styled  dogs  or  beasts,  have  not 
an  equal  privilege.  They  are  scarce  permitted  to  pick  up  the  crumbs 
which  fall  from  their  master’s  table.  Not  to  mention  what  numbers  have 
been  given  up  to  the  inhuman  usage  of  task-masters,  who,  by  their  unre- 
lenting scourges,  have  plowed  their  backs,  and  made  long  furrows,  and,  at 
length,  brought  them  even  unto  death.  When  passing  along,  I have  viewed 
your  plantations  cleared  and  cultivated,  many  spacious  houses  built,  and  the 
owners  of  them  faring  sumptuously  every  day,  my  blood  has  frequently 
almost  run  cold  within  me,  to  consider  how  many  of  your  slaves  had  neither 
convenient  food  to  eat,  nor  proper  raiment  to  put  on,  notwithstanding  most 
of  the  comforts  you  enjoy  were  solely  owing  to  their  indefatigable  labors.” 

In  tracing  the  origin,  progress,  and  history  of  American 
slavery,  now  claiming  the  high  sanction  and  sacred  guaranties 
of  our  Constitution  and  laws,  and  wielding  both  state  and 
national  governments  for  its  support,  it  is  important  to  note 
down  with  distinctness  and  precision  all  those  facts  of  the 
history  that  may  serve  to  throw  any  light  upon  the  rise  and 
growth  of  those  high  claims,  and  the  methods  that  have  been 
employed  to  swell  them  into  their  present  magnitude,  to  give 
them  their  present  hold  upon  the  public  mind,  and  upon 
the  politics,  the  legislation,  and  the  jurisprudence  of  the 
country. 

Equally  interesting  will  it  be  to  trace,  if  we  can,  the  process 
by  which  the  murderous  and  piratical  depredations  of  John 


16 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


Hawkins,  upon  the  unoffending  inhabitants  of  Africa,  scarcely 
three  centuries  ago,  have  been  made  to  give  not  only  legal 
validity,  but  biblical  authority  and  sanction  to  the  imbruting 
of  three  millions  of  native-born  Americans,  of  all  hues,  the 
descendants  of  all  the  nations  of  Europe,  as  well  as  of  the 
African  tribes. 

We  pause,  therefore,  to  inquire  on  what  authority , divine  or 
human,  the  North  American  colonies  of  Great  Britain  were 
inundated  with  a population  of  slaves?  Was  it  the  prece- 
dent of  Gonzalez,  the  alleged  recommendation  of  Las  Casas, 
the  importunate  rapacity  of  Chievres,  the  permission  of  Fer- 
dinand, the  patent  of  Charles  Y.,  that  gave  legality  to  these 
proceedings?  Was  it  the  guarded  and  hesitant  assent  of 
Queen  Elizabeth?  Wds  it  the  treachery  and  perjury  of  Haw- 
kins? AYas  it  the  ambiguity  of  the  Act  of  Parliament  “for 
extending  and  improving  the  trade  to  Africa,”  but  forbidding 
“any  violence  to  the  natives,”  and  imposing  a petty  fine  upon 
any  commander  who,  “ by  fraud,  force,  or  violence,  or  any 
other  indirect  practice  whatsoever,”  should  “take  on  board 
or  carry  away  from  the  coast  of  Africa,  any  Negro,  or  native 
of  said  country?” 

And  what  was  done  by  the  colonial  authorities  to  authorize 
the  traffic? 

“ The  New  England  colonies,  New  Jersey,  Pennsylvania,  Virginia,  pre- 
sented to  the  throne  the  most  humble  and  suppliant  petitions,  praying  for  the 
abolition  of  the  trade.  The  colonial  legislatures  passed  laws  against  it. 
But  their  petitions  were  spurned  from  the  throne.  Their  laws  were  vetoed 
by  their  Governors.” — Hon.  Horace  Mann.  Speech  in  Congress,  June  30, 
1848. 

In  the  original  draft  of  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  by 
Mr.  Jefferson,  this  charge  against  the  King  of  Great  Britain  is 
thus  stated  : 

“ He  has  waged  cruel  war  against  human  nature  itself,  violating  its  most 
sacred  rights  of  life  and  liberty,  in  the  persons  of  a distant  people  who 
never  offended  him,  captivating  and  carrying  them  into  slavery  in  another 
hemisphere,  or  to  incur  miserable  death  in  their  transportation  thither.  This 
piratical  warfare,  the  opprobrium  of  infidel  powers,  is  the  warfare  of  the 
Christian  king  of  Great  Britain.  Determined  to  keep  a market  where  men 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


17 


should  be  bought  and  sold,  he  has  at  length  prostituted  his  negative  for  sup- 
pressing any  legislative  attempt  to  prohibit  and  restrain  this  execrable 
commerce.” 

This  paragraph  was  objected  to  by  the  delegation  from 
Georgia,  and  it  was  accordingly  expunged  from  the  docu- 
ment. 

A bundle  of  incongruities  here  present  themselves,  attesting 
the  monstrous  and  anomalous  character  of  the  usages  in  ques- 
tion. The  British  Government,  that  had  never  dared,  in  the 
face  of  British  Common  Law,  to  attempt  legalizing,  directly 
and  unequivocally,  the  slave  traffic,  interposed,  it  would  seem, 
to  prevent  the  colonies  from  suppressing  it.  The  colonies 
that,  (as  will  be  shown,)  had  transcended  and  even  outraged 
their  constitutional  charters  by  their  iniquitous  slave  code, 
are  found  petitioning  and  attempting  to  legislate  against  the 
slave  trade!  Slave-holding  republicans  stigmatizing  a mon- 
arch as  a tyrant  because  he  had  permitted  them  to  be  supplied 
with  the  subjects  of  their  own  tyranny!  A revolutionary 
Congress  compelled  or  consenting  to  strike  out  the  most 
weighty  item  in  the  list  of  offences  that  characterized  their 
repudiated  king  as  a tyrant ! 

Whatever  solution  may  be  made  of  such  paradoxes,  or 
whatever  may  be  inferred  from  them,  they  furnish  a slippery 
and  intricate  labyrinth  for-  slave-holders  in  search  of  their 
sacred  and  vested  rights,  the  legal  sanctions  and  the  constitu- 
tional guaranties  of  their  peculiar  immunities,  the  very  founda- 
tions of  which  were  laid  in  piracy  and  crime. 

Thus  much  in  respect  to  the  colonial  slave  trade , the  founda- 
tion of  colonial  slavery.  We  inquire  next  respecting  such 
facts  of  history,  whatever  they  may  be,  as  shall  afford  informa- 
tion concerning  the  authority,  either  divine  or  human,  by 
which  the  colonists  held  slaves,  and  the  colonial  legislatures, 
(that  attempted  the  suppression  of  the  slave  trade  as  criminal,) 
enacted  their  slave  laws. 

We  are  entering,  here,  upon  no  process  of  argument.  We 
are  only  recording  indisputable  facts,  without  which  our  his- 
torical sketches  would  be  unfaithful  and  incomplete.  Wo 

2 


18 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


know  of  nothing  so  sacred  in  the  claims  of  slavery  as  could 
warrant  the  suppression  of  important  historical  facts. 

One  of  those  facts  is,  that  there  were  no  English  statute 
laws,  prior  to  the  American  Revolution,  authorizing  the  hold- 
ing of  slaves,  either  in  England  or  in  the  American  colonies. 
None  such,  at  least  that  we  know  of,  have  ever  been  alleged 
to  exist. 

Another  fact  is,  that  the  common  law  of  England  was  in- 
compatible with  slavery,  and  neither  recognized  nor  permit- 
ted its  existence. 

Another  fact  is,  that  in  the  jrnar  1772,  the  Court  of  King’s 
Bench,  Lord  Mansfield  presiding,  affirmed,  in  respect  to  Eng- 
land, the  legal  facts  above  stated,  and  decided  that  there 
neither  then  was,  nor  ever  had  been,  any  legal  slavery  in 
England. 

Another  fact  is,  that  the  colonial  charters,  authorizing  the 
colonial  Legislatures  to  enact  laws,  gave  no  license  to  slavery, 
and  contained  the  general  proviso,  that  the  laws  of  the  colo- 
nies should  “ not  be  repugnant  or  contrary,  but  as  nearly  as 
circumstances  would  allow,  conformable  to  the  laws,  statutes, 
and  rights  of  our  kingdom  of  England.”* 

Another  fact  is,  that  when  slavery  was  first  introduced  into 
the  Anglo-American  colonies,  and  for  some  time  afterwards, 
there  were  no  colonial  enactments' that  authorized  the  holding 
of  slaves,  or  defined  the  relation  and  condition  of  slavery. 
The  practice  of  slave-holding  grew  up  and  was  tolerated  with- 
out law,  till  at  length  it  acquired  power  to  control  legislation 
and  wield  it  in  favor  of  slavery. 

Another  fact  is,  that  when  enactments  were  passed  upon 
the  subject,  they  assumed  the  existence  of  slavery,  without  so 
defining  who  were  or  might  be  slaves,  as  to  enable  any  slave- 
master  at  the  present  day  to  prove  that  his  slaves  are  held  in 
virtue  of  any  of  the  colonial  enactments. 

Another  fact  is,  that  the  authority  of  the  colonial  “ charters, 


* The  charters  of  Virginia,  Maryland,  the  Carolinas,  and  Georgia,  as  ■well  as  of 
Pennsylvania  and  the  New  England  colonies,  were  essentially  alike  in  this  particular. 
— Spooner , p.  24. 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


19 


during  their  continuance,  and  the  general  authority  of  the 
common  law,  prior  to  the  Revolution,  have  been  recognized 
by  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States.”* 

These  important  historical  facts  should  be  borne  in  mind, 
pondered,  and  used,  when  there  is  occasion  for  them,  by  all 
who  wish  to  oppose  slavery,  or  to  understand  the  relation  of 
slave-holding  to  the  laws  and  institutions  of  the  country. 

The  landing  of  the  founders  of  New  England,  at  Plymouth, 
was  in  1620.  The  first  settlement  in  Virginia,  at  Jamestown, 
was  in  1607.  The  charter  to  Lord  Baltimore,  of  Maryland, 
was  granted  in  1632.  The  charter  to  William  Penn,  of  Penn- 
sylvania, in  1681.  North  Carolina  began  to  be  settled  about 
1650.  South  Carolina,  about  1670,  and  Georgia  in  1733. 

Virginia  was  the  first  of  the  colonies  that  introduced  slavery. 
Such  an  event  was  a natural  consequence  of  the  character  and 
position  of  the  first  inhabitants. 

“ Of  the  one  hundred  and  five  persons  on  the  list  of  emigrants  destined  to 
remain,  there  were  no  men  with  families, — there  were  but  twelve  laborers, 
and  very  few  mechanics.  The  rest  were  composed  of  gentlemen  of  fortune, 
and  of  persons  of  no  occupation, — mostly  of  idle  and  dissolute  habits — who  had 
been  tempted  to  join  the  expedition  through  curiosity  or  the  hope  of  gain  ; a 
company  but  poorly  calculated  to  plant  an  agricultural  State  in  a wilder- 
ness.”— Willson's  Am.  Hist.  p.  162. 

New  emigrants  arrived  in  1609,  “ most  of  whom  were  profligate  and 
disorderly  persons,  who  had  been  sent  off  to  escape  a worse  destiny  at 
home.” — lb.  p.  166. 

“ In  the  month  of  August,  1620,  a Dutch  man-of-war  entered  James  River 
and  landed  twenty  negroes  for  sale.  This  was  the  commencement  of  negro 
slavery  in  the  colonies.” — Ib.p.  169. 

At  this  time  “ there  were  very  few  women  in  the  colony” — “ Ninety 
women  of  reputable  character”  were  soon  after  sent  over,  and  the  colonists 
purchased  them  for  wives,  “the  price  of  a wife  rising  from  one  hundred  and 
twenty  to  one  hundred  and  fifty  pounds  of  tobacco.” — Ib.p.  170. 

Though  these  were  not  held  as  slaves,  yet  the  state  of  soci- 
ety indicated  by  these  historical  incidents,  illustrate  the  moral 
and  social  position  of  the  colonists,  at  the  time  they  com- 


* 9 CrancKs  U.  S.  Reports , 332-3,  as  quoted  in  “ The  Unconstitutionality  cf 
Slavery,  by  Lysander  Spooner ,”  pp.  25-6. 


20 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


menced  the  practice  of  slave-holding.  And,  so  far  as  law  was 
concerned,  there  was  no  more  legal  authority  or  sanction,  at 
that  time,  in  Virginia,  for  the  holding  of  negroes  in  slavery, 
than  there  was  for  making  slaves  of  the  white  women  they 
purchased.  And  the  incident  of  purchasing  wives  shows  that 
the  mere  act  of  purchasing  human  beings  (of  which  mention 
is  made  in  the  Scriptures,)  does  not,  of  necessity,  involve  the 
ideas  of  chattelhoocl,  or  of  forced  servitude : no,  not  even  in  Vir- 
ginia !* 

About  the  year  1671,  Sir  John  Yeamans  was  appointed  governor  of  South 
Carolina.  “ From  Barbadoes  he  brought  a number  of  African  slaves,  and 
South  Carolina  was,  from  the  first,  essentially,  a planting  State,  with  slave 
labor.” — Willson's  Am.  Hist.  p.  256. 

The  first  settlement  of  Georgia  was  commenced  under  au- 
spices decidedly  hostile  to  slavery.  Gen.  James  Oglethorpe, 
a member  of  the  British  Parliament,  “ conceived  the  idea  of 
opening  for  the  poor  of  his  own  country,  and  for  the  perse- 
cuted protestants  of  all  nations,  an  asylum  in  America.” 
Having  obtained  a grant  from  the  king,  he  landed  at  Savan- 
nah with  120  emigrants,  and  commenced  his  settlement  in 
1733..  The  Trustees  strictly  prohibited  slavery,  and  “de- 


* Another  fact,  illustrative  of  the  social  and  moral  influences  under  which  slavery 
grew  up  and  entrenched  itself  in  Virginia,  deserves  notice. 

The  following  were  the  views  of  Sir  William  Berkeley,  a royal  Governor  of 
Virginia,  on  the  subject  of  popular  education.  In  a letter  descriptive  of  the  state 
of  that  province,  some  years  after  the  Restoration,  he  says : 

“ I thank  God  there  are  no  free  schools  nor  printing,  and  I hope  we  shall  not 
have,  these  hundred  years ; for  learning  has  brought  heresy  and  disobedience  and 
sects  into  the  world,  and.  printing  divulges  them,  and  commits  libels  against  the 
government.  God  keep  us  from  both  !” 

This  must  have  been  since  the  year  1C60,  the  era  of  the  “Restoration”  of  Charles 
II.,  or  nearly  half  a century  after  the  lawless  introduction  of  slavery  into  the  colony. 
And  it  is  among  the  archives  of  this  dark  period  of  Virginian  brutality,  sensualism, 
ignorance,  lawlessness,  despotism,  servility,  and  semi- barbarism — in  a community 
without  wives,  or  with  wives  purchased  like  negroes  with  tobacco,  without  printing 
presses  or  free  schools  for  more  than  half  a century,  and  no  prospect  of  them  in 
future — here  it  is  that  our  learned  civilians  and  erudite  theologians,  in  gowns  and 
spectacles,  are  reverently  searching  for  the  credentials  of  the  “peculiar  institution,” 
with  its  sacred  legal  rights  and  Bible  guaranties  ! Worthy  successors  of  Sir  Wil- 
liam Berkeley  1 Accomplished  expounders  of  his  law,  and  of  his  gospel ! — “ God 
keep  vs  from  both  P'  i 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


21 


dared  it  to  be  not  only  immoral , but  contrary  to  the  laws  of 
England — Willson’s  Am.  Hist.,  p.  262. 

Unhappily — “ Most  of  those  who  first  came  over  were  unaccustomed  to 
habits  of  labor.”  ( lb . 262.)  “ The  Colony  did  not  prosper,”  and  some  of  the 

colonists  began  to  “ complain  that  they  were  prohibited  the  use  of  slave- 
labor. 

“ The  regulations  of  the  trustees  began  to  be  evaded,  and  the  laws  against 
slavery  were  not  rigidly  enforced.  At  first,  slaves  from  South  Carolina 
were  hired  for  short  periods ; then,  for  a hundred  years,  or  during  life,  and  a 
sum  equal  to  the  value  of  the  negro  paid  in  advance  ; and  finally,  slavers  for 
Africa  sailed  directly  from  Savannah  ; and  Georgia,  like  Carolina,  became 
a planting  State,  with  slave-labor.” — Willson's  Am.  Hist.  p.  265. 

“ In  1752,  the  trustees  of  Georgia,  wearied  with  complaints  against  the 
system  of  government  which  they  had  established,  and  finding  that  the 
Colony  languished  under  their  care,  resigned  their  charter  to  the  king,” 
&c. — lb.  p.  266. 

The  historical  evidence  is  bere  complete,  that  slavery  and 
the  slave  trade  were  introduced  into  Georgia,  not  only  without 
the  sanction  of  either  British  or  Colonial  law,  but  in  manifest 
and  flagrant  violation  of  both. 

Gen.  Oglethorpe,  defeated  in  his  laudable  efforts,  returned 
to  England,  in  1743.  He  afterwards  became  the  friend  and 
co-adjutor  of  Granville  Sharp,  and  wrote  against  slavery, 
and  the  impressment  of  seamen.  Under  date  of  Cranham 
Hall,  13th  October,  1776,  he  wrote  to  Mr.  Sharp  the  follow- 
ing particulars  respecting  his  former  connection  with  the 
colony  of  Georgia: 

“ My  friends  and  I settled  the  Colony  of  Georgia,  and  by  charter  wero 
established  trustees,  to  make  laws,  &c.  We  determined  not  to  suffer  slavery 
there.  But  the  slave  merchants  and  their  adherents  occasioned  us  not  only 
much  trouble,  but  at  last  got  the  then  government  to  favor  them.  We  would 
not  suffer  slavery,  (which  is  against  the  Gospel,  as  well  as  the  fundamental 
law  of  England)  to  be  authorized  under  our  authority  ; we  refused,  as  trus- 
tees, to  make  a law  permitting  such  a horrid  crime.  The  government,  find- 
ing the  trustees  resolved  firmly  not  to  concur  with  what  they  believed  un- 
just, took  away  the  charter  by  which  no  law  could  be  passed  without  our 
consent.” — Stuart' s Memoir  of  Sharp,  p.  25. 

The  particulars  which  follow  demand  careful  attention. 

In  Virginia,  “ slavery  was  introduced  in  1620,  but  no  act 


22 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


was  passed  even  purporting  to  tell  who  might  be  slaves,  until 
1670  ” — and  this  act  was  afterwards  found  so  defective  in  the 
description,  as  to  need  a new  act  for  the  purpose  in  1748, 
one  hundred  and  twenty-eight  years  after  slavery  had  been 
introduced. — Spooner's  “ Unconstitutionality  of  Slavery , pp. 
88-9. 

“ In  North  Carolina,  no  general  law  at  all  was  passed,  prior  to  the  revo- 
lution, declaring  who  might  be  slaves.”  ( See  Iredell's  Statutes,  revised  by 
Martin ). — Spooner  p.  40. 

“ In  South  Carolina  the  only  statutes,  prior  to  the  revolution,  that  at- 
tempted to  designate  the  slaves,  was  passed  in  1740 — after  slavery  had  a 
long  time”  (sixty-nine  years)  “ existed.  And  even  this  statute,  in  reality 
defined  nothing,  for  the  whole  purport  of  it  was  to  declare  that  all  negroes, 
Indians,  mulattoes,  and  mestizoes,  except  those  who  were  then  free,  should 
be  slaves.” — Spooner,  p.  40. 

But  no  previous  law  had  told  who  were  then  legally  slaves , 
nor  who  were  legally  free  ! 

“ The  same  law,  in  nearly  the  same  words,  was  passed  in  Georgia,  in 
1770,”  more  than  a quarter  of  a century  after  the  introduction  of  slavery, 
and  after  the  commencement  and  brisk  prosecution  of  the  African  slave 
trade.” — Vide  Spooner,  pp.  40,  41 — Willson's  History,  fc. 

The  11  earliest  law  ” of  Maryland,  noticed  by  Judge  Stroud, 
defining  who  might  be  held  as  slaves,  was  enacted  in  1663, 
thirty-one  years  after  the  settlement  of  the  colony.  The  lan- 
guage of  the  statute  assumes  the  previous  fact  of  slaveholding, 
and  alludes  also  to  a still  more  remarkable  fact. 

“ Divers  free-born  English  women,  forgetful  of  their  free  condition,  and 
to  the  disgrace  of  our  nation,  do  intermarry  with  negro  slaves ; by  which, 
also,  divers  suits  may  arise,  touching  the  issue  of  such  women,  and  great 
damage  doth  befall  the  master  of  such  negroes,”  &c. 

To  deter  from  such  matches,  the  statute  enacts  as  follows : 

“ Whatsoever  free-born  woman  shall  intermarry  with  any  slave,  shall 
serve  the  master  of  such  slave  during  the  life  of  her  husband,  and  that  all  the 
issue  of  such  free  born  women,  so  married,  shall  be  slaves,  as  their  fathers 
were.” — Stroud's  Sketch  of  the  Slave  Laws,p.  10. 

This  last  provision  was  a departure  from  the  prevalent 
maxim  of  the  slave  code,  that  the  child  follows  the  condition 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


28 


of  the  mother.  The  temporary  end  of  the  statute  of  1663 
having  been  answered,  it  was  repealed  in  1681,  with  a clause 
saving  the  rights  under  the  act  of  1663,  so  that  the  mas- 
ters might  continue  to  hold  in  slavery  the  descendants,  if 
any,  of  the  “ free  born  English  women  ” who  might  have 
married  slaves,  during  the  operation  of  the  act  of  1663, 
which  was  repealed  “ to  prevent  persons  from  purchasing- 
white  women  as  servants,  and  marrying  them  to  their  slaves, 
for  the  purpose  of  making  slaves  of  them  and  their  offspring.” 

Yet  “ the  doctrine  of  ‘ partus  sequitur’  obtained  in  the  province”  ( i . e.  the 
children  of  slaves  followed  the  condition  of  the  father)  “ till  the  year  1699 
or  1700,  when  a general  revision  of  the  laws  took  place,  and  the  acts  in 
which  this  doctrine  was  recognized  were,  with  many  others,  repealed.  An 
interval  of  about  fifteen  years  appears  to  have  elapsed,  without  any  written 
taw  on  this  subject;  but  in  1715  (chap.  44,  sec.  22)  the  following  one  was 
passed:  “All  negroes  and  slaves  already  imported,  or  hereafter  to  be  im- 
ported into  this  province,  and  all  children  now  born  or  hereafter  to  be  born 
of  such  negroes  and  slaves,  shall  be  slaves  during  their  natural  lives.’  Thus, 
(continues  Stroud)  was  the  maxim  of  the  civil  law,  1 partus  sequitur  ventrem' 
introduced,  and  the  condition  of  the  mother , from  that  day  to  the  present 
time,  has  continued  to  determine  the  fate  of  the  child.” — Stroud's  Sketch , 

pp.  10,  11. 

Had  tbe  opposite  maxim  prevailed — bad  tbe  child  fol- 
lowed the  condition  of  tbe  father , there  would  have  been 
comparatively  few  slaves  in  Maryland,  or  in  any  of  tbe 
southern  states,  at  the  present  time. 

The  dates  of  colonial  enactments  on  the  subject  of  slavery 
are  important  historical  items,  as  already  hinted,  because 
they  are  necessary  in  order  to  establish  the  fact  of  legalized 
colonial  slavery,  and  to  fix  the  period  of  its  commencement, 
in  a given  colony,  (if  any  such  legislation  under  the  Colonial 
Charters  already  alluded  to,  can  be  supposed  to  have  been 
valid.)  And  we  have  already  noticed  that  the  practice  of 
slaveholding  obtained  in  the  principal  slave  colonies,  for  long 
periods,  and,  in  one  instance,  up  to  the  period  of  the  Ameri- 
can Eevolution,  without  any  action  of  the  colonial  authorities, 
attempting  to  tell  who  were  slaves ; viz.  in  Virginia,  50  years; 
in  South  Carolina,  69  years ; in  Georgia,  more  than  25  years; 


24 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


in  Maryland,  (from  its  first  settlement),  31  years;  and  in 
North  Carolina  there  was  no  colonial  definition  at  all! 

But  the  dates  and  the  various  provisions  of  the  several 
colonial  enactments,  admitting  them  to  have  been  constitu- 
tionally valid,  become  important  historical  facts  in  another 
point  of  view,  not  only  as  bearing  upon  the  inquiry,  Who 
were,  legally,  slaves,  but  also  on  the  question,  What  teas  the 
slavery  under  which  they  were  thus  legally  held,  and  When 
was  it,  that  that  slavery,  as  thus  legislatively  defined,  became 
legalized  ? 

For,  if  it  were  clearly  ascertained  and  established,  that 
;!  slavery,”  in  general  terms,  had  been  legalized  by  valid 
and  constitutional  enactments  of  the  colonial  legislatures,  in 
the  first  commencement  of  their  authority,  the  question  would 
still  remain  whether  the  slavery  thus  legalized  was  identical 
with  the  slavery  defined  many  years  afterwards,  or  whether 
it  was  altogether  another  thing , though  known  by  the  same 
name.  The  South  Carolina  enactment  of  1740,  and  the 
Georgia  enactment  of  1770,  would  tell  us,  distinctly  enough, 
what  was  the  slavery  of  those  colonies  at  those  periods  : but 
they  could  not  tell  us  whether  the  slavery  legalized  in  those 
colonies  (if,  indeed,  there  were  any)  sixty-nine,  and  twenty- 
five  years  previous,  was  precisely  the  same  thing.  It  might 
have  been  only  the  bond-service  of  Massachusetts,  in  1641, 
defined  by  “ the  law  of  God  established  in  Israel,”  and  which, 
if  followed  out,  would  have  secured  “ a jubilee  throughout  the 
land,  to  all  the  inhabitants  thereof,”  long  ago.  In  Georgia,  as 
we  have  seen,  the  first  slavery  was  the  hiring  of  slaves  for 
short  periods,  then  for  one  hundred  years — then  buying,  then 
importing  them,  and  thus  the  whole  system  was  changed. 

When  we  are  told  of  the  inherited,  imprescriptible,  time- 
sanctioned,  and  guarantied  rights  of  the  present  American 
slaveholder,  it  becomes  a matter  of  the  deepest  interest  to 
learn,  if  we  may,  the  origin,  the  date,  the  tenure,  and  the 
description  of  those  rights,  as  originally  defined.  Between  the 
right  to  import  Africans  into  the  colonies,  with  “ their  own 
free  consent”  in  the  times  of  Queen  Elizabeth  or  James  I., 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


25 


and  the  right  to  hold  the  descendants  of  those  Africans,  and 
of  all  the  nations  of  Europe,  as  chattels  personal,  in  the  pres- 
ent American  States,  there  seems  a perceptible  chasm,  and 
before  the  latter  can  be  inferred  from  the  former,  some  atten- 
tion must  needs  be  paid  to  the  various  arches  of  the  bridge 
by  which  this  chasm  is  conceived  to  have  been  spanned.  A 
few  missing  links  and  bolts  might  endanger  the  safety  of  the 
transition.  Into  the  requisite  examination  we  cannot  now 
enter.  We  only  indicate  the  field  of  inquiry,  and  note  down 
a few  obvious  facts. 

In  consulting  Stroud’s  Sketch  of  the  Slave  Laws,  one  is 
struck  with  the  fact  that  most,  if  not  all  of  the  colonial  enact- 
ments cited,  bear  date  many  years  after  the  practice  of  slave- 
holding is  known  to  have  been  introduced,  and  after  the  slaves 
must  have  become  numerous.  From  this  fact,  and  from  the 
implications  or  statements  in  the  preambles  to  those  acts,  it 
appears  evident  that  the  usages  of  slavery  grew  up  first,  and 
that  the  colonial  legislation  came  in,  to  sanction  and  shelter 
them,  afterwards,  indicating  the  fact  of  a previously  existing 
slavery  without  statute,  and  consequently  illegal,  since  no 
one  maintains  that  it  could  have  originated  in  natural  right,  « 
or  in  the  principles  of  common  law. 

Thus,  in  Virginia,  where  slavery,  in  fact , commenced  in 
1620,  the  first  slave  law  cited  by  Stroud  or  by  Spooner,  is 
that  of  1670,  and  most  of  the  acts  defining  slavery  are,  per- 
haps, since  1700. — Of  the  slave  laws  of  Maryland,  (which  was 
settled  in  1632,)  the  first  cited  is  that  of  1668,  and  the  remain- 
der are  from  1715  to  1751. — Of  those  of  South  Carolina, 
where  slavery  commenced  in  1671,  the  first  cited  bears  date 
1695, — the  remainder  from  1711  to  1740,  at  which  latter  date 
the  ‘‘peculiar  institution”  evidently  received,  (so  far  as  the 
statute  is  concerned,)  its  full  proportions  and  shape. — Of  those 
of  North  Carolina,  settled  about  1650,  the  first  cited  is  that 
of  1729,  and  the  remainder  bear  date  from  1741  to  1743,  about 
which  time  the  definition  of  slavery  appears  to  have  been 
settled,  upon  very  nearly  its  present  basis,  in  that  Colony. — 
Of  those  of  Georgia,  where  slavery  commenced  prior  to  1743, 


26 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


the  first  and  only  distinct  reference  is  to  the  law  of  1770,  by 
which,  very  manifestly,  the  cardinal  features  of  the  slave  law, 
in  that  Colony,  were  determined. — These  eras  in  colonial  slave 
legislation  are  too  distinctly  marked  to  be  mistaken  or  forgot- 
ten by  the  student  of  American  slave  law ; though,  doubtless, 
there  must  have  been  some  earlier  acts,  not  noticed  by  Judge 
Stroud,  and  some  of  his  references  are  to  Digests  and  Manuals, 
in  which  the  dates  of  legislation  are  not  given. 

Slave  legislation,  since  the  American  Revolution,  has  made 
some  important  strides.  Virginian  slavery  reposes  on  her 
revised  code  of  1819,  and  is  what  that  makes  it,  without  dream- 
ing of  any  hazard  to  the  venerable  antiquity  of  her  claims. 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


27 


CHAPTER  IY. 

EARLY  TESTIMONIES  AGAINST  SLAVERY  AND  THE  SLAVE 

TRADE. 

The  Dominicans  in  Spanish  America,  as  related  by  Clarkson,  “ consid- 
ered slavery  as  utterly  repugnant  to  the  principles  of  the  gospel,  and  recom- 
mended the  abolition  of  it.”  Being  opposed  by  the  Franciscans,  “a 
controversy  on  the  subject  between  them  was  carried  to  Pope  Leo  X.  for 
his  decision.” 

Pope  Leo  X.  declared  that  “ not  only  the  Christian  religion,  but  that 
nature  herself  cried  out  against  slavery.” 

Charles  V.  (as  before  stated)  bore  testimony  against  slavery,  by  abolish- 
ing it  in  his  dominions,  in  the  year  1542. 

Between  A.  D.  1670  and  1680,  Godwyn,  a clergyman  of  the  Established 
Church,  and  Richard  Baxter,  the  celebrated  Non-conformist,  bore  strong 
testimony  against  these  oppressions,  the  former,  describing,  with  nervous 
eloquence,  the  brutality  of  slavery,  as  he  had  witnessed  it  in  Barbadoes  ; — 
the  latter  protesting  against  the  traffic,  and  denouncing  those  engaged  in  it  as 
pirates  and  robbers.  These  writers  were  followed  by  Southern.  Hutcheson, 
Foster,  Atkins,  Wallis,  and  others.  [Vide  Clarkson.] 

Bishop  Warburton,  in  1676,  preached  a sermon,  denouncing,  in  strong 
language,  those  who  “talk,  as  of  herds  of  cattle,  of  property  in  rational 
creatures !” 

Dr.  Porteus,  Bishop  of  London,  said  that  the  slave  trade  was  contrary  to 
the  religion  we  professed.  He  vindicated  the  Bible  against  the  assertion 
that  it  sanctioned  slavery — “ Nay,”  (said  he)  “ it  classed  men-stealers  or 
slave  traders  among  the  murderers  of  fathers  and  mothers,  and  the  most 
profane  criminals  on  earth.” 

John  Wesley,  the  founder  of  Methodism,  who  had  witnessed  the  workings 
of  slavery  in  our  North  American  colonies  and  in  the  West  Indies,  declared 
“ American  slavery”  to  be  “the  vilest  that  ever  saw  the  sun,”  and  consti- 
tuting “ the  sum  of  all  villanies.”  Slave  dealers,  he  denominated  “ man 
stealers  ; the  worst  of  thieves,  in  comparison  of  whom  high-way  robbers 


28  GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 

and  house-breakers  are  comparatively  innocent.”  He  adds  : “ And  men 
buyers  are  exactly  on  a level  with  men  stealers.” 

Jonathan  Edwards,  the  younger,  said  : “To  hold  a man  in  a state  of 
slavery,  is  to  be,  every  day,  guilty  of  robbing  him  of  his  liberty,  or  of  man 
stealing.” 

Bishop  Horsley  said  : “ Slavery  is  injustice,  which  no  consideration  of 
policy  can  extenuate.” 

Dr.  Samuel  Johnson  said  : “ No  man  is  by  nature  the  property  of  another. 
The  rights  of  nature  must  be  some  way  forfeited  before  they  can  justly  be 
taken  away.” 

Edmund  Burke  said  : “ Slavery  is  a state  so  improper,  so  degrading,  and 
so  ruinous  to  the  feelings  and  capacities  of  human  nature,  that  it  ought  not 
to  be  suffered  to  exist.” 

Archdeacon  Paley  said  : “ Slavery  is  a dominion  and  system  of  laws,  the 
most  merciless  and  tyrannical  that  were  ever  tolerated  upon  the  face  of  the 
earth.” 

Montesquieu  ironically  said  : “ If  we  allow  negroes  to  be  men,  it  will 
begin  to  be  believed  that  we,  ourselves,  are  not  Christians  !” 

Blackstone,  the  jurist,  sums  up  ah  elaborate  scrutiny  of  the  subject  thus  : 
“ If  neither  captivity  nor  contract  can,  by  the  plain  law  of  nature  and 
reason,  reduce  the  parent  to  a state  of  slavery,  much  less  can  they  reduce 
. the  offspring.” 

William  Pitt  declared  it  to  be  “ injustice  to  permit  slavery  to  remain  for 
a single  hour.” 

Charles  James  Fox  said  : “With  regard  to  a regulation  of  slavery,  my 
detestation  of  its  existence  induces  me  to  know  no  such  thing  as  a regula- 
tion of  robbery,  and  a restriction  of  murder.”  “ Personal  freedom  is  a 
right  of  which  he  who  deprives  a fellow-creature  is  criminal  in  so  depriving 
him,  and  he  who  withholds  is  no  less  criminal  in  withholding.” 

Bishop  Butler  said : “ Despicable  as  they”  (the  negroes)  “ may  appear  in 
our  eyes,  they  are  the  creatures  of  God,  and  of  the  race  of  mankind,  for 
whom  Christ  died,  and  it  is  inexcusable  to  keep  them  in  ignorance  of  the 
end  for  which  they  were  made,  and  of  the  means  whereby  they  may  be- 
come partakers  of  the  general  redemption.” 

Hannah  More  said  : “ Slavery  is  vindicated  in  print  (1788),  and  defended 
in  the  House  of  Peers  1 Poor  human  reason ! When  wilt  thou  come  to 
years  of  discretion  ?” 

Dr.  Samuel  Hopkins  said  : “ Slavery  is,  in  every  instance,  wrong,  un- 
righteous, oppressive,  a very  great  and  crying  sin,  there  being  nothing  of 
the  kind  equal  to  it  on  the  face  of  the  earth.” 

The  learned  Grotius  said : “ Those  are  men  stealers  who  abduct,  keep, 
sell  or  buy  slaves  or  free  men.  To  steal  a man  is  the  highest  kind  of 
theft.” 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


29 


Dr.  Benjamin  Rush  said : “ Domestic  slavery  is  repugnant  to  the  prin- 
ciples of  Christianity.”  “ It  is  rebellion  against  the  authority  of  a common 
Father.” 

Dr.  Primatt  said  : “ It  has  pleased  God  to  cover  some  men  with  white 
skins  and  others  with  black  ; but  as  there  is  neither  merit  nor  demerit  in 
complexion,  the  white  man,  notwithstanding  the  barbarity  of  custom  and 
prejudice,  can  have  no  right,  by  virtue  of  his  color,  to  enslave  and  tyran- 
nize over  the  black  man.” 

Dr.  William  Robertson  said:  “No  inequality,  no  superiority  in  power, 
no  pretext  of  consent,  can  justify  this  ignominious  depression  of  human 
nature.” 

The  Abbe  Gregoire  said  : “ The  corruption  of  our  times  carries  towards 
posterity  all  the  elements  of  slavery  and  crime.”  “ There  is  not  a vice, 
not  a species  of  wickedness,  of  which  Europe  is  not  guilty  towards  ne- 
groes, of  which  she  has  not  shown  them  the  example.” 

The  Abbe  Raynal  said  : “ He  who  supports  slavery  is  the  enemy  of  the 
human  race.  He  divides  it  into  two  societies  of  legal  assassins,  the  op- 
pressors and  the  oppressed.”  “I  shall  not  be  afraid  to  cite  to  the  tribunal 
of  reason  and  justice  those  governments  which  tolerate  this  cruelty,  or 
which  even  are  not  ashamed  to  make  it  the  basis  of  their  power.” 

Dr.  Price,  of  London,  said  : “ If  you  have  a right  to  make  another  man 
a slave,  he  has  a right  to  make  you  a slave.” 

Joseph  Addison  said  : “ What  color  of  excuse  can  there  be  for  the  con- 
tempt with  which  we  treat  this  part  of  our  species”  (the  negroes),  “ that  we 
should  not  put  them  upon  the  common  footing  of  humanity'?” — Vide  Spec- 
tator. 

Dr.  Adam  Clarke,  the  learned  commentator,  said  : “ How  can  any  nation 
pretend  to  fast,  or  worship  God,  or  dare  profess  to  believe  in  the  existence 
of  such  a being,  while  they  carry  on  what  is  called  the  slave  trade,  and 
traffic  in  the  souls,  blood,  and  bodies  of  men  ? 0 ye  most  flagitious  of 

knaves,  and  worst  of  hypocrites ! Cast  off  at  once  the  mask  of  religion, 
and  deepen  not  your  endless  perdition  by  professing  the  faith  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  while  you  continue  in  this  traffic.” — Comment,  on  Isa.,  58  : G. 

Macknight,  the  commentator,  in  exposition  of  1 Tim.  1 : 10,  said  : “ Men 
stealers  are  inserted  among  the  daring  criminals  against  whom  the  law  of 
God  directed  its  awful  curses.  These  were  persons  who  kidnapped  men 
to  sell  them  for  slaves  ; and  this  practice  seems  inseparable  from  the  other 
iniquities  and  oppressions  of  slavery ; nor  can  a slave  dealer  easily  keep 
free  from  this  criminality,  if  indeed  the  receiver  is  as  bad  as  the  thief.” 

Thomas  Scott,  the  commentator,  copied  the  preceding  from  Macknight, 
and  in  his  practical  observations  on  Rev.  18  : 13 — “ Souls  of  men” — said  : 
“To  number  the  persons  of  men  with  beasts,  sheep,  and  horses,  as  the 
stock  of  a farm,  or  with  bales  of  goods,  as  the  cargo  of  a ship,  is,  no  doubt, 
a most  detestable  and  anti-Christian  practice.” 


30 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


Abraham  Booth  (the  Baptist  theological  writer)  said : “ I have  not  a 
stronger  conviction  of  scarcely  anything,  than  that  slave  holding  (except 
when  the  slave  has  forfeited  his  liberty  by  crimes  against  society)  is  wicked 
and  inconsistent  with  Christian  char ac ter."  “ To  me  it  is  evident,  that  who- 
ever would  purchase  an  innocent  black  man  to  make  him  a slave,  would 
with  equal  readiness  purchase  a white  one  for  the  same  purpose,  could  he 
do  it  with  equal  impunity,  and  no  more  disgrace.” 

Mr.  Booth  preached  a sermon  (1792)  entitled  “ Commerce  in  the 
Human  Species,  and  the  enslaving  of  innocent  persons,  inimical  to  the  laws 
of  Moses,  and  the  Gospel  of  Christ.”  The  text  was  from  Exodus  21  : 16. 
“ He  that  stealeth  a man,  and  selleth  him,  or  if  he  be  found  in  his  hands,  he 
shall  surely  be  put  to  death.” 

James  Beattie  said  : “ Slavery  is  inconsistent  with  the  dearest  and  most 
essential  rights  of  man’s  nature  ; it  is  detrimental  to  virtue  and  industry  ; it 
hardens  the  heart  to  those  tender  sympathies  which  form  the  most  lovely 
part  of  human  character ; it  involves  the  innocent  in  hopeless  misery,  in 
order  to  procure  wealth  and  pleasure  for  the  authors  of  that  misery ; it  seeks 
to  degrade  into  brutes,  beings  whom  the  Lord  of  Heaven  and  Earth  endowed 
with  rational  souls,  and  created  for  immortality ; in  short,  it  is  utterly  re- 
pugnant to  every  principle  of  reason,  religion,  humanity,  and  conscience. 
It  is  impossible  for  a considerate  and  unprejudiced  mind,  to  think  of  slavery 
without  horror.” 

George  Fox,  when  in  Barbadoes,  in  1671,  addressed  himself  thus,  to  those 
who  attended  his  religious  meetings : “ Consider  with  yourselves,  if  you 
were  in  the  same  condition  as  the  poor  Africans  are,  who  came  strangers  to 
you,  and  were  sold  to  you  as  slaves  ; I say,  if  this  should  be  the  condition 
of  you  or  yours,  you  would  think  it  a hard  measure  ; yea,  and  very  great 
bondage  and  cruelty.” 

John  Locke  said  : “ Slavery  is  so  vile,  so  miserable  an  estate  of  man, 
and  so  directly  opposite  to  the  generous  temper  and  courage  of  our  nation, 
that  it  is  hard  to  be  conceived  that  an  Englishman,  much  less  a gentleman, 
should  plead  for  it.” — Essay  on  Government. 

Thomas  Jefferson  said:  “The  whole  commerce  between  master  and 
slave,  is  a perpetual  exercise  of  the  most  boisterous  passions  ; the  most  un- 
remitting despotisms,  on  the  one  part,  and  degrading  submissions  on  the 
other.”  “ I tremble  for  my  country,  when  I reflect,  that  God  is  just ; that 
his  justice  cannot  sleep  forever.” — Notes  on  Virginia. 

John  Jay  said  : “ Till  America  comes  into  this  measure”  (abolition)  “ her 
prayers  to  Heaven  will  be  impious.  This  is  a strong  expression,  but  it  is 
just.”  “ I believe  that  God  governs  the  world,  and  I believe  it  to  be  a 
maxim  in  His.  as  in  our  courts,  that  those  who  ask  for  equity  ought  to  do  it.’ 
— Letter  from  Spain,  1780. 

Dr.  Benjamin  Franklin  said : “Slavery  is  an  atrocious  debasement  of 
human  nature.” 


SLAVERY  AMD  FREEDOM. 


31 


James  Oglethorpe,  the  founder  of  Georgia,  said  : “ This  cruel  custom  of 
a private  man's  being  supported  in  exercising  more  power  over  the  man 
whom  he  affirms  to  have  bought  as  his  slave,  than  the  magistrate  has  over 
the  master,  is  a solecism  in  politics.” — Stuart's  Memoir  of  Sharp,  p.  25. 

Rousseau  said:  “The  terms  slavery  and  right , contradict  and  exclude 
each  other.” 

Buffon  said : “ It  is  apparent  that  the  unfortunate  negroes  are  endowed 
with  excellent  hearts,  and  possess  the  seeds  of  every  human  virtue.  I can- 
not write  their  history  without  lamenting  their  miserable  condition.”  “ Hu- 
manity revolts  at  those  odious  oppressions  that  result  from  avarice.” 

Brissot  said  : “ Slavery,  in  all  its  forms,  in  all  its  degrees,  is  a violation 
of  divine  law,  and  a degradation  of  human  nature.” 

Sir  William  Jones  said  : “ I pass  with  haste,  by  the  coast  of  Africa, 
whence  my  mind  turns  with  indignation  at  the  abominable  traffic  in  the 
human  species,  from  which  a part  of  our  countrymen  dare  to  derive  their 
inauspicious  wealth.” 


Our  limits  forbid  us  to  extend  this  list  of  witnesses,  into 
which  we  have  introduced  but  few  of  the  names  most  prom- 
inently connected,  in  England  and  America,  with  specific 
enterprises  for  abolishing  the  slave  trade  and  slavery.  Nor 
have  we  quoted  the  more  modern  -writers  on  the  subject,  nor 
many  of  the  American  statesmen  during  and  since  the  Revo- 
lution, (some  of  them  slave-holders,)  whose  testimony  would 
have  been  appropriate.  In  another  connection  we  may  refer 
to  some  of  them.  Nor  have  we  cited  the  long  catalogue  of 
eminent  poets,  all  of  whom,  with  scarcely  an  exception,  have 
deplored  and  condemned  slavery.  And  yet,  our  chapter  of 
testimonies  is  sufficient  to  show  that  the  moral  sense,  the 
reason,  the  sympathy,  the  humanity,  the  philosophy,  and  the 
professed  religion  of  the  civilized  world,  are  against  slavery, 
which  is,  of  course,  destined  to  fall. 


32 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


CHAPTER  Y. 

ACTION  OF  RELIGIOUS  BODIES  AGAINST  THE  SLAVE  TRADE 
AND  SLAVERY,  COMMENCING  BEFORE  THE  AMERICAN  REVO- 
LUTION, AND  ITS  RESULTS. 

George  Fox  in  Barbadoes — William  Edmondson,  A.D.  1675 — Friends  in  England, 
A.D.  1727 — 1761 — 1763 — 1772 — Fnends  in  America — Yearly  Meeting  in  Philadel- 
phia, A.D.  1696 — Gov.  Penn,  1700 — Quarterly  Meetings  of  Chester,  Haddonfield, 
&c.  Yearly  Meeting,  1754 — 1774 — 1776 — Friends  in  New  England — Rhode  Island 
Quarterly  Meeting,  A.D.  1716 — 1727 — 1770 — Yearly  Meeting  of  New  York, 
1759 — Purchase  Quarterly  Meeting,  1767.  Yearly  Meeting,  1771 — 17S1 — Yearly 
Meeting  of  Virginia,  A.D.  1757 — 1766 — 1767 — 1768 — 1773 — 1787 — Compensation 
provided  for  Emancipated  Slaves — Stirring  Agitations  among  Friends  during 
this  Reformation — William  Burling,  Ralph  Sandiford,  Benjamin  Lay,  John  Wool- 
man,  Anthony  Benezet — Congregationalists  in  America — Dr.  Samuel  Hopkins — 
Church  at  Newport,  1769. 

From  the  records  of  early  anti-slavery  testimony , we  turn  to 
those  of  early  anti-slavery  action.  As  those  testimonies  were 
evidently  founded,  for  the  most  part,  in  the  principles  of  the 
Christian  religion,  and  were  urged  on  religious  considerations, 
it  was  natural  that  the  early  efforts  against  slavery  and  the 
slave  trade  should  partake  of  the  same  character,  and  be  pro- 
pounded in  religious  bodies. 

FRIENDS  IN  ENGLAND. 

George  Fox,  as  already  mentioned,  remonstrated  with  the 
“Friends”  in  Barbadoes,  concerning  their  treatment  of  the 
negroes.  This  was  in  1671.  He  exhorted  them  to  give  their 
slaves  religious  instruction,  and  “bring  them  to  know  the 
Lord  Christ.”  In  his  journal  he  says: 

“ I desired,  also,  that  they  would  cause  their  overseers  to  deal  mildly  and* 
gently  with  their  negroes,  and  not  use  cruelty  towards  them,  as  the  manner 


SLAVERY  AYD  FREEDOM. 


33 


of  some  had  been ; and  that,  after  certain  years  of  servitude,  they  should 
make  them  free.”* 

In  a public  discourse,  lie  said : 

“ Let  me  tell  you,  it  will  doubtless  be  very  acceptaole  to  the  Lord,  if  so 
be  that  masters  of  families  here,  would  deal  so  with  their  servants,  and 
nearoes,  and  blacks,  whom  they  have  bought  with  their  money,  as  to  let 
them  go  free,  after  they  have  served  faithfully  a considerable  number  of 
years,  be  it  thirty,  more  or  less,  and  when  they  go,  and  are  made  free,  let 
them  not  go  away  empty  handed. ”f 

William  Edmundson,  a fellotv-laborer  with  Fox,  bore  a 
similar  testimony.  He  complained  of  the  herding  of  the  slaves 
together  like  brute  beasts,  without  any  religious  instruction, 
or  a sufficiency  of  suitable  sustenance. — Clarkson , p.  5. 

Both  Fox  and  Edmundson  were  charged  with  exciting  the 
slaves  to  revolt,  and  the  latter  was  arraigned  before  the  gov- 
ernor, in  1675,  on  that  false  allegation. — “ Brief  Statement ,”  p.  6. 

Thus  early  began  the  false  charge  of  bloody  designs,  and  no 
peacefulness  of  principles,  no  mildness  of  manner  and  lan- 
guage, and  no  moderation  of  measures — though  even  faulty 
in  that  direction,  have  ever  exempted  the  earnest  friends  of 
emancipation  from  these»charges. 

I do  not  find  any  individual  of  this  Society  (i.  e.  in  England)  moving  in 
this  cause,  for  some  time  after  the  death  of  George  Fox  and  William 
Edmundson.  The  first  circumstance  of  moment  which  I discover,  is  a 
resolution  of  the  whole  society,  on  the  subject,  at  their  yearly  meeting,  held 
in  London,  in  the  year  1727.  The  resolution  was  in  the  following 
words” 

“ It  is  the  sense  of  this  meeting,  that  the  importing  of  negroes  from  their 
native  country  and  relations,  by  Friends,  is  not  a commendable  or  allowed 
practice,  and  is  therefore  censured  by  this  meeting.” — Clarkson’s  History. 

p.  51. 

From  this  record  it  is  evident  that  Friends,  in  England,  at 
this  time,  were,  to  a greater  or  less  extent,  implicated  in  the 
African  slave  trade.  And  it  is  equally  clear  from  what  fol- 
lows, that  this  very  cautious  and  gentle  admonition  had  not 


* Clarkson's  History , p.  50. 

+ Brief  Statement,  &c.,  by  the  Philadelphia  Yearly  Meeting,  1S43,  page  6. 

3 


31 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


fully  sufficed,  in  thirty-one  years,  to  purge  the  Society  from 
the  guilt  of  that  traffic.  In  1758,  the  following  resolution 
was  adopted : 

“We  fervently  warn  all  in  profession  with  us,  that  they  carefully  avoid 
being  in  any  way  conqerned  in  reaping  the  unrighteous  profits  arising  from 
the  iniquitous  practice  of  dealing  in  negro  or  other  slaves,  whereby,  in  the 
original  purchase,  one  man  selleth  another,  as  he  doeth  the  beasts  that 
perish,  without  any  better  pretension  to  property  in  him,  than  that  of  superior 
force,  in  direct  violation  of  the  Gospel  rule,  which  teacheth  all  to  do  as  they 
would  be  done  by,  and  to  do  good  to  all.  We,  therefore,  can  do  no  less  than, 
with  the  greatest  earnestness,  impress  it  upon  Friends,  everywhere,  that 
they  endeavor  to  keep  their  hands  clear  of  the  unrighteous  gain  of  oppres- 
sion.” 

Three  years  afterwards,  1761,  the  Society  took  a further 
step,  as  appears  by  the  following : 

“ This  meeting,  having  reason  to  apprehend  that  diverse,  under  our  name, 
are  concerned  in  the  unchristian  traffic  in  negroes,  doth  recommend  it 
earnestly  to  the  care  of  Friends,  everywhere,  to  discourage,  as  much  as  in 
them  lies,  a practice  so  repugnant  to  our  Christian  profession  ; and  to  deal 
with  all  such  as  shall  persevere  in  a conduct  so  reproachful  to  Christianity  : i 
and  disown  them , if  they  do  not  desist  therefrom.'' 

In  1763,  this  action  was  repeated,  and  the  cords  drawn  still 
tighter,  in  the  following  : 

“We  renew  our  exhortation  that  Friends,  everywhere,  be  especially 
careful  to  keep  their  hands  clear  of  giving  encouragement,  in  any  shape,  to 
the  slave-trade,  being  evidently  destructive  of  the  natural  rights  of  mankind, 
who  are  all  ransomed  by  one  Savior,  and  visited  by  one  divine  light,  in 
order  to  salvation,  a traffic  calculated  to  enrich  and  aggrandize  some, 
upon  the  misery  of  others  ; in  its  nature,  abhorrent  to  every  just  and  tender 
sentiment,  and  contrary  to  the  whole  tenor  of  the  Gospel.” 

“ By  the  minute  which  was  made  on  this  occasion,  I apprehend  that  no 
one  belonging  to  the  Societ}r,  could  furnish  even  materials  for  such  voyages.” 

— Clarkson,  p.  52. 

It  is  to  be  noticed  that  all  this  action  was  directed  against  1 
the  slave  trade , or  the  importing  of  negroes.  Nothing  is  said 
directly  of  slave  holding,  though  slaves  were  then  held  in  Eng- 
land, whether  by  Quakers  we  cannot  tell,  though  Quakers  in 
America  held  slaves  at  that  time. 

In  1772,  the  Society  in  England  approved  the  “salutary 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM.  35 

endeavors  ” of  Friends  in  America,  to  discourage  the  holding 
of  slaves. 

FRIENDS  IN  AMERICA. 

The  movement  among  Friends  in  America  began  earlier : 

“ The  Quakers  in  America,  it  must  be  owned,  did  most  of  them,  originally, 
as  other  settlers  there,  with  respect  to  the  purchase  of  slaves.” — Clarkson, 
p.  57. 

They,  however,  treated  them  with  peculiar  lenity,  yet  indi- 
viduals among  them  soon  became  uneasy  about  holding  slaves 
at  all. 

In  the  year  1696  the  yearly  meeting  of  Philadelphia  advised  its  members 
to  “ be  careful  not  to  encourage  the  bringing  in  of  any  more  negroes,  and 
that  those  who  have  negroes  be  careful  of  them,  bring  them  to  meetings, 
have  meetings  with  them  in  their  families,  and  restrain  them  from  loose  and 
lewd  living,  as  much  as  in  them  lies,  and  from  rambling  abroad,  on  First 
days,  or  other  times.”* — “ Brief  Statement ,”  &e.,  p.  8. 

The  quarterly  meetings  of  Chester,  Haddonfield,  Philadel- 
phia, Bucks,  Burlington,  and  Salem,  subordinate  to  the  yearly 
meeting,  took  measures  from  time  to  time,  on  the  subject. 
The  quarterly  meeting  of  Chester  extended  into  Virginia. — 
“ Brief  Statement ,”  &c. 

In  the  yearly  meeting,  the  subject  was  kept  alive  by  renewed 
testimonies  from  time  to  time,  and  advance  steps  were  taken, 
until,  in  1754,  the  meeting  recommended  to  “advise  and  deal 
with  such  as  engage”  in  the  traffic.  They  also  expressed  a 
desire  to  guard  against  “ promoting  the  bondage  of  such  an 
unhappy  people.”  They  “observe  that  their  number  is,  of 
late,  increased  among  us.”  They  intimate  the  injustice  of 
living  upon  their  unrequited  labor,  and  beseech  those  who 
have  received  slaves  as  an  inheritance  that  they  so  train  them 


* William  Penn,  while  Governor,  in  1700,  laid  before  the  meeting  his  concern  cn 
the  same  subject,  recommending  religious  meetings  with  the  slaves.  “ His  attempts 
to  improve  their  condition  by  legal  enactments  were  defeated  in  the  House  of  As- 
sembly.”— Tb.,  p.  9.  A law  imposing  a duty  of  twenty  pounds  upon  every  slave 
imported,  was  a few  years  afterwards  enacted,  but  disannulled  by  the  British 
Crown.—/}.,  p.  11. 


86  GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 

as  to  prepare  them  for  freedom,  if  they  should  hereafter  set 
them  at  liberty. — Clarlcson's  History , pp.  58,  59.* 

In  1774  another  advance  step  was  taken. 

“ By  a resolution  of  that  year,  all  members  concerned  in  importing,  sell 
ing,  purchasing,  giving,  or  transferring  negroes  or  other  slaves,  or  other- 
wise acting  in  such  a manner  as  to  continue  them  in  slavery  bcvnnd  the 
term  limited  by  law  or  custom  (i.  e.,  for  white  persons),  were  directed  to  be 
excluded  from  membership,  or  disowned.” — Clarkson's  History,  p.  60. 

“In  the  year  1776,  the  same  yearly  meeting  carried  the  matter  still 
farther.  It  was  then  enacted,  That  the  owners  of  slaves,  who  refused  to 
execute  proper  instruments  for  giving  them  their  freedom,  were  to  be  dis- 
owned likewise.” — lb. 

As  the  result  of  this  action,  it  appears  that  the  practice  of 
slaveholding  was  generally  discontinued  within  the  bounds 
of  the  Philadelphia  Yearly  Meeting,  not  many  years  after- 
wards. The  subordinate  meetings  took  early  measures  for 
carrying  out  the  views  of  the  Yearly  Meeting.  The  Phila- 
delphia Monthly  Meeting  reported,  in  1781,  that  “ there  was 
but  one  case,”  under  care,  and,  in  1783,  that  “ there  were  no 
slaves  owned  by  its  members.” 

“ As  the  minute  of  1781  is  the  last  on  record  ” (of  the  Yearly  Meeting) 
“ on 'this  subject,  which  speaks  of  slaves  being  still  owned  by  our  members, 
it  is  probable  that  before  the  succeeding  Yearly  Meeting,  they  had  all  been 
freed.” — Brief  Statement,  p.  35. 

These  measures  were  followed  by  efforts  for  the  religious 
instruction  of  the  emancipated  negroes  ; and  in  some  instances 
they  were  compensated  for  their  past  services. 


* From  the  more  full  quotation  of  this  document,  in  the  Brief  Statement  of  1843, 
we  learn  that  it  also  held  the  more  stern  language  that  follows  : 

“And  we  entreat  all  to  examine,  whether  the  purchasing  of  a negro,  either  born 
here  or  imported,  doth  not  contribute  to  a further  importation,  and  consequently  to 
the  upholding  all  the  evils  above  mentioned,  and  promoting  man  stealing — the  only 
theft  which,  by  the  Mosaic  law,  was  punished  with  death : ‘ He  that  stealeth  a man, 
and  selleth  him,  or  if  he  be  found  in  his  hand,  he  shall  surely  be  put  to  death.’ — 
Ex.  21  : 16.” — Brief  Statement,  see  p.  18. 

So  that  the  ecclesiastical  testimony  of  the  “ Friends” — invidiously  commended  by 
some  for  its  mildness,  did  not  reach  its  object,  till  it  had  identified  slaveholding 
with  man  stealing.  This  testimony  is  recorded  as  being  “ supposed  to  have  been 
from  the  pen  of  Anthony  Benezet.” 


SLAVERY  AJYD  FREEDOM. 


37 


The  course  of  action  by  the  New  England  Yearly  Meeting, 
and  its  subordinate  meetings,  was  very  similar,  and  but  little 
later  in  dates.  The  earliest  action  on  record  is  a query  by 
the  Monthly  Meeting  of  Dartmouth  to  the  Ehode  Island 
Quarterly  Meeting,  in  1716,  asking  “ whether  it  be  agreeable 
to  Truth,  for  Friends  to  purchase  slaves,  and  keep  them  for  a 
term  of  life?”  The  question  was  referred  back  to  the  different 
monthly  meetings  composing  that  quarterly  meeting.  The 
answers  of  several  meetings  were  in  the  negative.  The  matter 
came  up  again  before  the  Ehode  Island  Quarterly  Meeting,  in 
1717,  but  no  decisive  minute  was  made  on  the  subject. — In 
1727,  the  Yearly  Meeting  made  a short  minute  censuring  the 
practice  “ of  importing  negroes  from  their  native  country  and 
relations.”  In  1760,  the  discipline  was  revised,  and  the  lan- 
guage of  the  “ printed  epistle  of  the  London  Yearly  Meeting 
of  1758,  against  dealing  in  negroes  and  other  slaves,”  was 
incorporated  into  the  discipline.  In  the  same  year  the  follow- 
ing inquiry  was  adopted : 

“ Are  Friends  clear  of  importing  negroes,  or  buying  them  when  imported  ; 
and  do  they  use  those  wrell,  where  they  are  possessed  by  inheritance  or 
otherwise,  endeavoring  to  train  them  up  in  the  principles  of  religion 

In  1769,  the  Ehode  Island  Quarterly  Meeting  proposed  to 
the  Yearly  Meeting  such  an  amendment  of  this  query  as 
should  not  imply  that  the  holding  of  slaves  was  allowed. 
The  Yearly  Meeting  deferred  action  until  1770,  when  the 
query  was  so  amended  as  to  include  the  following : 

“ And  are  all  set  at  liberty  that  are  of  age,  capacity  and  ability,  suitable* 
for  freedom  ?” 

This  action  was  carried  forward  until,  in  1782,  the  Yearly 
Meeting  says — 

“ We  know  not  but  all  the  members  of  this  meeting  are  clear  of  that 
iniquitous  practice  of  holding  or  dealing  with  mankind  as  slaves.” — Brief 
Statement , &c.,  pp.  44  to  47. 

It  was  not,  however,  until  1787,  that  the  Yearly  Meeting 
could  report  a satisfactory  settlement  for  the  past  services  of 
those  who  had  been  held  in  slavery.  ( lb .) 


38 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


The  Yearly  Meeting  of  New  York,  previous  to  1759,  had 
manifested,  its  disapprobation  of  the  slave  trade. — The  Pur- 
chase Quarterly  Meeting,  in  1767,  suggested  the  inquiry, 
“whether  it  is  consistent  with  a Christian  spirit  to  keep  those 
in  slavery  we  have  already  in  possession,  by  purchase,  gift,  or 
any  other  way  ?” 

In  1771,  the  Yearly  Meeting  concluded  “ that  those  Friends 
who  have  negroes  shall  not  sell  them  for  slaves,  excepting  in 
cases  of  executors,”  &c.,  who  are,  in  that  case,  to  advise  with 
their  respective  monthly  meetings. — Measures  were  taken,  the 
same  year,  to  encourage  manumissions. 

In  1776,  the  Yearly  Meeting  took  still  higher  ground, 
refusing  to  accept  or  employ  the  services  in  the  church,  or 
“receive  the  collections,”  of  those  who  “ continue  these  poor 
people  in  bondage.” 

In  1781,  a solitary  case  of  slaveholding  was  reported — and 
in  1787  there  were  none  at  all. 

In  1781,  the  Yearly  Meeting  advised  each  monthly  meeting 
to  appoint  suitable  persons  to  inspect  the  cases  of  the  recent 
emancipations,  and  afford  such  assistance  and  advice,  both  in 
respect  to  the  temporal  and  spiritual  good  of  the  emancipated, 
as  might  be  in  their  power,  and  “ endeavor  to  find  what,  in 
justice,  may  be  due  them.”  At  the  succeeding  Yearly  Meet- 
ing, it  was  recommended  that  committees  be  appointed  by  the 
monthly  meetings  to  “hand  out  to  the  said  negroes”  “the 

sum  or  sums  which  may  a]:>pear  to  be  due  them.” “So 

faithfully  and  earnestly  did  Friends  carry  out  these  views  of 
the  Yearly  Meeting,  that  in  the  year  1781  there  appear  to 
have  been  but  three  unsettled  cases  remaining. — u Brief  State- 
ment” kc,.,  pp.  47  to  51. 

The  Yearly  Meeting  of  Virginia  introduced  a query  “ de- 
signed to  forbid  the  trafficking  in  slaves,”  in  1757.  In  1761, 
the  Meeting  advised  additional  attention  to  the  religious 
instruction  and  clothing  of  slaves.  In  1766,  it  was  proposed 
to  forbid  its  members  to  purchase  any  more  negroes,  and 
the  subject  was  referred  back  to  the  quarterly  meetings.  In 
1767,  the  Yearly  Meeting  could  not  unanimously  conclude 


SLAVERY  AJSTD  FREEDOM. 


39 


upon  issuing  any  injunctions  either  with  regard  to  purchasing 
or  setting  them  free,  but  earnestly  desired  each  member  to 
be  careful  and  not  encumber  himself  or  posterity  with  any 
further  purchases. — In  1768,  this  advice  was  made  a rule  of 
discipline. — In  1773,  the  Yearly  Meeting  earnestly  recom- 
mended manumissions,  and  quoted  the  words  of  the  prophet — - 
“ The  people  of  the  land  have  used  oppression  and  exercised 
robbery ,”  &c.  The  measure  was  followed  up  till  1787,  when 
it  appeared  that  there  were  still  some  members  who  held 
slaves.  It  is  stated  that,  after  this,  “the  Yearly  Meeting  of 
Virginia  gradually  cleared  itself  of  this  grievous  burthen 
but  the  precise  date  of  its  final  extinction  is  not  given. — - 
“ Brief  Statement,"  &c.,  pp.  51  to  56. 

A very  interesting  feature  of  this  reformation  among  the 
Friends,  was  the  compensation  provided  for  the  emancipated 
slaves,  in  striking  contrast  with  the  absurd  claim,  sometimes 
set  up,  for  compensation  to  the  master.  Another  circum- 
stance worthy  of  note  is  the  uniformity  and  celerity  with 
which  the  reformation  was  effected,  so  soon  as  the  ecclesias- 
tical bodies  adventured  to  characterize  slaveholding,  in  the 
strong  but  truthful  language  of  Scripture,  as  robbery  and 
man-stealing;  giving  proof  of  the  earnestness  and  sincerity 
of  their  testimony,  by  taking  measures  for  withdrawing  reli- 
gious fellowship  from  slaveholders.  It  is  stated  that  some 
were  actually  “ disowned"  for  non-compliance. — “ Brief  State- 
ment" &c.,  p.  46. 

ISTor  was  this  great  change  effected  in  the  Society  of  Friends 
without  stirring  agitations,  exciting  appeals,  and  long-con- 
tinued and  earnest  debates  and  discussions.  The  cautiously 
guarded  and  modified  records  of  the  ecclesiastical  bodies, 
especially  the  more  early  testimonies,  expressing,  perhaps,  in 
the  language  of  compromise,  the  hesitant  and  even  reluctant 
assent  of  the  predominating  and  conservative  portion  of  the 
body,  must  not  be  taken  as  specimens  of  the  tone  and  manner 
of  the  agitators  by  whom  the  subject  was  continually  pressed 
upon  the  attention  of  the  Society,  until  final  action  was 


40 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


reached.  A long  succession  of  these  untiring  and  zealous 
laborers  were  engaged  in  this  great  work. 

William  Burling,  of  Long  Island,  was,  perhaps,  the  first 
of  these.  He  began  his  testimony  early  in  life,  and  seldom 
if  ever  permitted  a Yearly  Meeting  to  assemble  and  separate 
without  hearing  his  earnest  remonstrance  against  their  tolera- 
tion of  slavery. 

Ralph  Sandiford,  of  Philadelphia,  was  another  earnest 
agitator.  He  published  his  “ Mystery  of  Iniquity,  in  a brief 
examination  of  the  practice  of  the  times,”  in  the  year  1729. 
The  language  is  described  as  bold,  stirring,  energetic,  and  ' 
uncompromising.  The  very  title-page  is  a sufficient  indica- 
tion of  the  fact. 

Benjamin  Lay  published  his  Treatise  on  Slave-keepingfin 
1737.  It  was  printed  by  Benjamin  Franklin.  The  title  of 
this  book"  shows  that  he  opposed  not  merely  the  slave  trade 
and  slave  buying,  (which  was  all  that  the  Yearly  Meeting  was 
prepared  to  do,  six  years  afterwards,)  but  likewise  the  prac- 
tice of  slaveholding,  and  denounced  it  as  a high  crime.  He 
is  described  by  Clarkson  as  “ a man  of  strong  understanding, 
and  of  great  integrity,  but  of  warm  and  irritable  feelings, 
and'  more  particularly  so  when  he  was  called  forth  on  any 
occasion  in  which  the  oppressed  Africans  were  concerned.”! 


* “ All  Slave-keepers,  that  keep  the  innocent  in  bondage,  apostates .” 

t Some  specimens  of  his  manner  of  agitating  “the  delicate  question”  may  oe 
interesting. 

“Calling  on  a Friend  in  the  city  (Philadelphia),  he  was  asked  to  sit  down  to 
breakfast,  lie  first  inquired,  ‘Dost  thou  keep  slaves  in  thy  house?’  On  being 
answered  in  the  affirmative,  he  said,  1 Then  I will  not  partake  with  thee  of  the  fruits 
of  thy  unrighteousness.’ — After  an  ineffectual  attempt  to  convince  a farmer  and  his 
wife  in  Chester  county  of  the  iniquity  of  keeping  slaves,  he  seized  their  only  child, 
a little  girl  of  three  years  of  age,  under  pretence  of  carrying  her  away,  and  when  the 
cries  of  the  child  and  his  singular  expedient  alarmed  them,  he  said,  ‘ You  see  and 
feel,  now,  a little  of  the  distress  which  you  occasion  by  the  inhuman  practice  of 
slave-keeping.” — First  Annual  Report , N.  Hampshire  A.  S.  Society , by  John  Farmer, 
Esq. — Emancipator  for  August,  1835. 

At  Friends’  Monthly  Meetings,  if  a slaveholder  rose  to  speak,  Benjamin  Lay  would 
rise  and  exclaim — “ There’s  another  negro  master !” 

On  one  occasion  he  seated  himself  in  a Friends’  Meeting  among  slaveholders,  with 
a bladder  of  bullock’s  blood  secreted  under  his  mantle,  and  at  length  broke  the  quiet 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


41 


For  forty-one  years,  and  until  his  death,  in  1759,  he  bore  an 
uncompromising  and  zealous  testimony  against  the  sin  of 
slavery. 

John  Woolman  travelled  through  the  provinces  as  a preacher 
and  anti-slavery  agitator,  from  1746  to  1767.  He  travelled 
much  of  the  time  on  foot,  conversing  with  the  people,  and 
discoursing  to  public  assemblies. 

Anthony  Benezet  published  a work  against  slavery  in  1762, 
and  another  in  1767.  He  wrote  also  in  the  public  journals, 
in  the  almanacs,  and  labored  in  every  practicable  and  suitable 
manner  to  convince  the  people  of  the  unlawfulness  of  slavery. 

“Let  all  the  evangelical  denominations  but  follow  the  simple  example  of 
the  Quakers  in  this  country,  and  slavery  would  soon  come  to  an  end.” — 
Albert  Barnes. 

If  to  this  statement  were  added  the  condition  that  the  mem- 
bers of  all  these  religious  denominations,  including  the  Qua- 
kers, would  support  the  cause  of  righteousness  in  their  political 
as  well  as  ecclesiastical  relations,  the  result  could  not  be  a 
matter  of  doubtful  speculation. 

CONGREGATIONALISTS  IN  NEW  ENGLAND. 

The  brightest  as  well  as  the  earliest  exhibition  of  Christian 
church  discipline  against  slavery , however,  was  in  the  instance, 
not  of  an  extended  ecclesiastical  organization  or  sect,  but  of 
an  Independent  or  Congregational  Church  in  New  England. 
When  Hr.  Samuel  Hopkins,  the  celebrated  theologian,  re- 
moved to  Newport,  Rhode  Island,  in  1769,  he  found  himself 
pastor  of  a church  involved  deeply  in  slaveholding  and  the 
African  slave  trade.  He  was  not  long  in  applying  to  those 


stillness  of  the  worship  hy  deliberately  rising  in  full  view  of  the  whole  audience, 
piercing  the  bladder,  spilling  the  blood  on  the  floor  and  seats,  thus 'sprinkling  some 
of  it  on  the  raiment  of  those  near  him,  and  exclaiming  with  all  the  solemn  authority 
of  an  ancient  prophet — “ Thus  shall  the  Lord  spill  the  blood  of  those  that  traffic  in 
the  blood  of  their  fellow-men !”— Some  shrieked — some  fainted,  and  the  meeting 
broke  up  in  confusion. 

“Modern”  abolitionists  have  been  censured  as  too  denunciatory  and  violent.  Not 
unfrequently  they  have  been  advised  to  take  the  good  old  Quaker  abolitionists  as 
models  of  mildness  ! Do  the  advisers  understand  what  they  are  saying  ? 


42 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


practices  the  stern  and  unbending  ethics  derived  from  his  then 
somewhat  peculiar  and  most  uncompromising  theology,  accord- 
ing to  which,  slaveholding  could  be  nothing  less  than  malum 
in  se,  in  every  instance  sinful,  without  any  valid  excuse,  or 
apology : a sin,  like  all  other  sin,  to  be  cured  or  purged  in  no 
way  but  by  its  present  and  unconditional  abandonment,  at 
whatever  cost,  the  case  admitting  of  no  prudential  stipulations, 
and  no  delay.  Admitting  into  his  theory  no  such  idea  as 
that  of  a gradual  regeneration  or  repentance,  he  could,  of 
course,  listen  to  no  proposition  for  a gradual  abandonment  of 
slaveholding.  His  measures,  therefore,  were  prompt,  his 
purpose  inflexible,  his  object  determinate.  It  was  not  to  the 
abuses  of  the  system,  nor  to  particular  cases  of  cruelty  that 
he  directed  attention,  further  than  to  ascertain  and  exhibit 
the  principle  that  lay  at  the  bottom  of  the  mischief.  His 
remedy  was  radical,  applying  to  the  root,  not  to  the  branches. 
In  the  slave  trade , with  all  its  abominations  and  horrors,  he 
saw  only  a particular  manifestation  or  phase  of  slavery.  With 
no  extended  ecclesiastical  body  to  consult,  to  assist,  or  to  im- 
pede him,  he  addressed  his  appeals  and  arguments  directly  to 
the  .consciences  and  the  intellects  of  his  congregation, — the 
party  immediately  concerned,  and  on  them , in  view  of  the  com- 
ing Judgment,  he  cast  the  tremendous  responsibility  of  direct 
and  unambiguous  action : 

The  church  was  soon  induced,  as  a Congregational  body, 
to  take  the  following  action  : 

“ Resolved,  that  the  slave  trade  and  the  slavery  of  the  Africans,  as  it 
has. existed  among  us,  is  a gross  violation  of  the  righteousness  and  benevo- 
lence which  are  so  much  inculcated  in  the  gospel,  and  therefore  we  will  not 
tolerate  it  in  this  Church." 

The  doctrines  of  modern  abolitionists,  of  the  inherent  sinful- 
ness of  slaveholding,  and  of  the  duty  of  immediate  and  un- 
conditional emancipation,  were  distinctly  enunciated  and  con- 
sistently reduced  to  practice  in  this  action  of  the  Congrega- 
tional church  in  Newport.  This  was  long  before  the  com- 
mencement of  any  systematic  efforts  for  abolishing  the  African 


SLAVERY  AXD  FREEDOM. 


43 


slave  trade,  before  the  decision  of  the  Somerset  case,  and  be- 
fore any  body  of  “ Friends  ” had  taken  a similar  position  in 
respect  to  slavery,  or  had  discontinued  the  practice.  Had  all 
the  Congregational  ministers  and  churches  in  this  country 
taken  the  stand  of  Samuel  Hopkins,  and  the  church  at  New- 
port, from  that  time  to  the  present,  there  is  no  reason  to  think 
that  the  condition  and  prospects  of  the  nation  would  have 
been,  at  this  time,  what  they  now  are.  How  many,  or  which 
of  the  Congregational  churches  in  New  England,  at  that 
period,  came  up  to  the  standard  of  the  church  at  Newport, 
we  are  unable  to  say.  It  is  understood  that  there  were  seve- 
ral."" And  it  is  certain  that  the  sentiment  was  very  generally 
received,  for  a time,  and  that  the  result  was  the  termination 
of  slavery  in  New  England.  Of  this,  and  of  the  concurrent 
action  of  the  Methodist  Conference,  and  Presbyterian  General 
Assembly,  we  shall  treat,  in  connection  with  the  records  of  a 
later  period.  We  must  first  dispose  of  some  points  in  the 
earlier  history. 


* In  a note  to  the  second  edition  of  Dr.  Hopkins'  Dialogue  on  Slavery , re-pub- 
lished in  1 tSo,  it  is  said : “ Since  the  first  edition  of  this  Dialogue , a number  of 
churches  in  New  England  have  purged  themselves  of  this  iniquity,  and  determined 
not  to  tolerate  the  holding  of  Africans  in  slavery.” 


44 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


CHAPTER  VI. 

OF  SLAVERY,  AND  ITS  ABOLITION  IN  ENGLAND. 

Judicial  Action — Granville  Sharp — Early  Introduction  of  Slavery  into  England; 
its  supposed  legality  (1700) — Opinion  of  York  and  Talbot,  in  favor  of  its  legality 
(1729)— Effects  of  this  Opinion — Slave  Traffic  in  England — Case  of  Jonathan 
Strong — Efforts  of  Sharp — His  Investigation  of  British  Law — Declares  Slavery  to 
be  illegal — Publishes  his  argument — Treats  Slavery  as  illegal,  though  the  Courts 
and  Public  Sentiment  were  against  him — Case  of  Thomas  Lewis — Decision  of 
Lord  Chief  Justice  Mansfield,  sustaining  the  legality  of  Slavery — Sharp  enters 
his  Protest — Blackstonc  alters  his  Commentaries  to  defeat  Sharp,  and  favor  the 
Slaveholders — Case  of  James  Somerset — The  Argument — A Decision  found 
against  Slavery  in  the  times  of  Queen  Elizabeth — Lord  Mansfield  hesitates — An 
interval  before  the  decision — Sharp  anticipates  the  result , and  memorializes  Lord 
North  against  Sla  very  in  the  Colonies — State  of  Public  Se  ntiment  against  Slavery — 
Final  decision  of  Lord  Mansfield(1772),  releasing  Somerset,  and  declaring  Slavery 
illegal  in  England — Second  Memorial  of  Sharp  to  Lord  North,  admonishing  him 
of  the  duty  of  suppressing  Slavery  in  the  Colonies,  agreeably  to  the  decision  of 
Lord  Mansfield. 

As  church  action  against  slavery  naturally  follows  and 
grows  out  of  religious  teachings  and  testimonies  against  the 
sin  of  slavery,  so  judicial  and  legislative  action  against  the 
practice,  naturally  follows  and  grows  out  of  both  the  preced- 
ing. The  laws  of  a country  are  an  index,  to  a great  extent, 
of  the  prevalent  religion  of  a country,  and  it  is  difficult,  if  not 
impossible,  to  maintain,  for  any  length  of  time,  a code  of  laws 
that  essentially  conflict  with  the  religion  of  the  people. 

From  the  records  of  early  religious  testimony  and  action 
against  slavery,  we  come  to  those  of  judicial  action. 

The  first  laborer  in  this  department  of  benevolent  enterprise, 
in  England,  says  Clarkson,  was  Granville  Sharp,  “distin- 
guished from  those  who  preceded  him  in  this  particular,  that 
whereas  they  were  only  writers,  he  was  both  a writer  and  an 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


45 


actor  in  the  cause.”  His  first  effort  in  1767,  for  the  release  of 
an  individual  slave,  vras  followed,  not  long  afterwards,  by 
systematic  endeavors  to  overthrow  slavery  itself  in  the  British 
dominions,  and  particularly  in  England. 

The  introduction  of  slavery  into  England,  appears  to  have 
been  upon  the  same  foundation,  (in  respect  to  its  legality,)  as 
its  introduction  into  the  North  American  colonies.  That  is, 
it  was  done  without  the  authority  of  any  direct  statute  ; and 
it  was  done  in  the  presence  and  in  palpable  violation  of  Eng- 
lish Common  Law.  If  it  could  {dead  any  legal  warranty,  it 
was  that  of  the  royal  permission  to  transport  Africans  “ with 
their  own  free  consent,”  into  the  colonies,  and  the  Act  of  Par- 
liament “ for  extending  and  improving  the  trade  to  Africa,” 
which  prohibited  “ any  violence  to  the  natives.” 

How  early  slaves  were  introduced  into  England,  we  cannot 
exactly  determine.  “Before  the  year  1700,”  says  Clarkson, 
“planters,  merchants,  and  others,  resident  in  the  West  Indies, 
but  coming  to  England,  were  accustomed  to  bring  with  them 
certain  slaves,  to  act  as  servants  with  them  during  their  stay.” 
They  frequently  absconded,  and  were  sometimes  seized  and 
sent  back  by  force.  A sentiment  had  come  down  from  former 
ages  that  Christians  could  not  enslave  Christians,  and  that  as 
soon  as  .an  Englishman’s  slave  was  baptized,  he  became  free. 
In  consequence  of  this  sentiment,  it  became  common  for  pious 
clergymen  to  baptize  all  the  slaves  they  could,  providing 
“ god-fathers  ” for  them,  according  to  the  usages  of  the  Church 
of  England.  These  god-fathers  were  in  the  habit  of  vindicat- 
ing their  high  claim  to  the  title,  by  espousing  the  cause  of 
their  god-children,  and  demanding  their  freedom.  For  a time, 
this  held  the  slave-masters  in  check,  as  they  were  “ afraid  to 
carry  off  their  slaves  by  force,  and  equally  afraid  to  bring  any 
of  the  cases  before  a public  court.” 

“ In  this  dilemma,  they  applied,  in  1729,  to  York  and  Talbot,  the  Attorney 
and  Solicitor-General,  for  the  time  being-,  and  obtained  from  them,  the 
following  strange  opinion  : — ‘ We  are  of  opinion  that  a slave,  by  coming 
from  the  West  Indies  into  Great  Britain  or  Ireland,  either  with  or  without 
his  master,  does  not  become  free,  and  that  his  master’s  right  and  property  in 


46 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


him  is  not  thereby  determined  or  varied,  and  that  baptism  doth  not  bestow 
freedom  upon  him,  or  make  any  alteration  in  his  temporal  condition,  in  these 
kingdoms.  We  are  also  of  opinion  that  the  master  may  legally  compel  him 
to  return  again,  to  the  plantations.’  ” 

“ This  cruel  and  illegal  opinion  was  delivered  in  1729.  The  planters, 
merchants,  and  others,  gave  it,  of  coarse,  all  the  publicity  in  their  power ; 
and  the  consequences  were  as  might  easily  have  been  apprehended.  In  a 
little  time,  slaves  absconding,  were  advertised  in  the  London  papers,  as 
runaways,  and  rewards  offered  for  the  apprehension  of  them;  in  the  same 
brutal  manner  as  we  find  them  advertised  in  the  land  of  slaver}-.  They  | 
were  advertised,  also,  in  the  same  papers,  to  be  sold  at  auction , sometimes 
by  themselves,  and  at  others,  with  horses,  chaises,  and  harness.  They  were 
seized  also  by  their  masters,  or  by  persons  employed  by  them,  in  the  very 
streets,  and  dragged  from  thence  to  the  ships ; and  so  unprotected,  now, 
were  these  poor  slaves,  that  persons,  no  wise  concerned  with  them,  began  to 
institute  a trade  in  their  persons,  making  agreements  with  captains  of  ships, 
going  to  the  West  Indies,  to  put  them  on  board  at  a certain  price.”  This 
‘‘shows,  as  all  history  does,  that  where  there  is  a market  for  the  persons 
of  human  beings,  all  kind  of  enormities  will  be  practiced  to  obtain  them.” — 
Clarkson's  History , &c.,  pp.  38-9. 

For  forty-three  years  did  this  “ illegal  opinion  ” of  York 
and  Talbot  prevail  in  Great  Britain  instead  of  law ; nay,  in 
opposition  to  the  fundamental  law  of  the  realm.  Such  was 
the  state  of  things  when,  in  1767,  as  before  mentioned,  Gran- 
ville Sharp  undertook  the  liberation  of  Jonathan  Strong, 
claimed  as  a slave  by  David  Lisle,  a lawyer  and  slave-master 
of  Barbadoes,  then  residing  in  London. 

“ But  the  lawyers  whom  Sharp  consulted,  declared  the  laws  were  against 
him.  Sir  James  Eyre,  Recorder  of  the  city,  whom  he  retained  as  his 
counsel,  adduced  to  him  York  and  Talbot’s  opinion,  and  informed  him  that 
Lord  Chief  Justice  Mansfield  agreed  with  those  gentlemen.” — Stuart's 
Memoir  of  Sharp , p.  8. 

“ Mischief  framed  by  law,  yet  against  law,  thus  took  deep  root  in 
Britain.”  “ At  this  time  slavery  had  disgraced  the  British  Colonies  in 
America  and  in  the  West  Indies,  for  two  hundred  years.  The  righteous 
law  of  the  empire  had  been  evaded  or  perverted,  and  opinion  and  precedent 
had  been  substituted  for  law." — Ibid,  pp.  6-7. 

This,  Granville  Sharp  understood,  though  he  stood  alone. 
He  had  not  been  educated  a lawyer.  But  he  understood, 
better  than  York  and  Talbot,  (as  the  event  proved,)  and  bet- 


SLAVERY  AMD  FREEDOM. 


47 


1 ter  than  Mansfield  and  Blackstone,  the  sacred  and  the  change- 
less nature  of  law.  A legal  triumph  was  in  reserve  for  him, 
I the  most  sublime  and  august  of  any  on  the  records  of  modern 
jurisprudence. 

But  it  was  not  won  in  the  controversy  concerning  Jonathan 
Strong.  Some  informality  in  the  proceedings  led  to  his  dis- 
charge by  the  Mayor.  He  was,  however,  instantly  seized 
again  by  Captain  Laird,  (about  to  sail  for  the  AVest  Indies,) 
on  behalf  of  John  Kerr,  to  whom  Lisle  had  sold  him.  This 
seizure  was  made  in  the  presence  of  the  mayor  and  others,  be- 
fore whom  also,  Granville  Sharp,  with  consummate  general- 
ship and  promptitude,  stepped  up  to  Captain  Laird,  and,  tap- 
ping him  on  the  shoulder,  exclaimed:  “I  charge  you,  in  the 
name  of  the  king,  with  an  assault  upon  the  person  of  Jonathan 
Strong,  and  all  these  are  my  witnesses  !”  Laird  was  intimi- 
dated, let  go  his  grasp,  and  Sharp  conveyed  away  the  ran- 
i somed  captive  in  triumph.  This  led  to  a suit  against  Sharp, 

! the  trial  of  which  was  deferred  by  the  plaintiffs  for  two  years, 
and  then  withdrawn  by  them  under  charge  of  treble  costs  for 
the  delay. 

During  these  two  years,  Air.  Sharp  applied  himself,  dili- 
gently, to  a further  study  of  the  law,  by  which  his  former  po- 
sition was  fortified,  and  he  was  prepared  for  any  future  litiga- 
tion on  the  subject.  In  the  course  of  this  investigation,  he 
applied  to  the  great  Doctor  (afterwards  Judge)  Blackstone, 
for  his  opinion.  “ He  was  not,  however,  satisfied  with  it,” 
says  Clarkson,  “ when  he  received  it,  nor  could  he  obtain  any 
satisfactory  answer  from  several  other  lawyers,  to  whom  he 
afterwards  applied.”  Thrown,  therefore,  upon  his  own  indus- 
try and  resources,  he  worked  out  the  problem  alone. 

“ The  result  of  his  research,  was  a tract,  ‘ On  the  injustice  and  dangerous 
tendency  of  tolerating  slavery , or  even  of  admitting  the  least  claim  to  private 
property,  in  the  persons  of  men,  in  England .” — Stuart's  Memoir,  p.  8. 

“In  this  work"*  (says  Clarkson)  “he  refuted,  in  the  clearest  manner, 
the  opinion  of  York  and  Talbot.  He  produced  against  it  the  opinion  of 


* Mr.  Clarkson  gives,  as  the  title  of  the  hook,  “ A Representation  of  the  Injustice 
and  Dangerous  Tendency  of  Tolerating  Slavery  in  England.” 


48 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


Lord  Chief  Justice  Holt,  who,  many  years  before,  had  determined  that 
every  slave  coming  into  England  became  free.  He  attacked  and  refuted  it, 
again,  by  a learned  and  laborious  inquiry  into  all  the  principles  of  villeinage. 
He  refuted  it,  again,  hy  showing  it  to  be  an  axiom  in  the  British  Constitu- 
tion, ‘ That  every  man  in  England,  was  free  to  sue  for,  and  defend  his 
rights,  and  that  force  cannot  be  used  without  a legal  process,’  leaving  it 
with  the  judges  to  determine  whether  an  African  was  a man.  He  attacked 
also,  the  principle  of  Judge  Blackstone,  and  showed  where  his  error  lay. 
This  valuable  book,  containing  these  and  all  other  kinds  of  arguments,  on 
the  subject,  he  distributed,  but  particularly  among  the  lawyers,  giving  them 
an  opportunity  of  refuting  or  acknowledging  the  doctrines  it  contained.” — 
Clarkson's  History,  p.  42. 

Several  cases  were  afterwards  tried,  in  which  the  slaves 
were  set  at  liberty ; but  “ none  of  the  cases  had  yet  been 
pleaded  upon  the  broad  ground,  1 Whether  an  African  slave 
coming  into  England,  became  free.’  This  great  question  had 
been  studiously  avoided.  It  was  still,  therefore,  left  indoubt.’’ 
Mr.  Sharp  continually  acted  on  the  ground  that  there  was  no 
legal  slavery  in  England,  though  the  judges  had  not  so  deci- 
ded. The  suspense  at  length  became  painful  to  both  parties, 
and  there  was  a general  anxiety  to  have  the  controversy  deci- 
ded.-— Clarkson , p.  42,  Stuart , p.  10. 

In  the  meantime,  some  of  the  cases  were  so  decided  as  to 
afford  great  encouragement  to  the  slave  party.  An  African, 
named  Thomas  Lewis,  had  escaped  from  his  master,  Mr.  Sta- 
pylton,  in  London.  He  was  recaptured,  and  put  on  board 
a vessel  for  the  West  Indies.  The  vessel  had  reached  the 
Downs,  and  was  already  under  way,  when  a habeas  corpus  was 
carried  on  board,  and  the  man  released,  and  sent  on  shore. 
A bill  was  found  against  Stapylton  and  his  two  assistants,  and 
the  case  was  tried  before  the  Court  of  King’s  Bench,  Lord 
Chief  Justice  Mansfield  presiding,  the  20th  of  February,  1771. 
The  jury  returned  a verdict  of  guilty:  “but  so  fraught  was 
Mansfield’s  mind,  still,  with  the  false  views  of  the  day,  that 
he  refused  to  proceed  to  judgment,  and  the  criminals  escaped.” 
— “ Against  this  proceeding  of  the  Judge,  as  an  open  contempt 
of  the  laws  of  England,  Granville  Sharp  prepared  a strong  pro- 
test.”— Stuart’s  Memoir,  p.  10. 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


49 


Another  incident,  and  a very  remarkable  one,  illustrates 
the  methods  resorted  to,  by  gentlemen  of  the  highest  stand- 
ing in  the  legal  profession,  at  that  time,  in  England,  to  sustain 
the  slave  interest,  at  the  expense  of  those  great  fundamental 
maxims  of  Common  Law,  of  which  they  were  themselves  the 
recognized  expounders,  and  which  they  could  enunciate,  dis- 
tinctly enough,  except  when  overawed  by  “ the  mighty  wealth 
and  influence  of  the  "West  India  faction,”  before  whom,  king 
and  nobles,  courts  of  justice,  parliaments  and  doctors  of  the 
law,  bowed  down  in  abject  submission. 

“ In  the  beginnings  of  his  researches,  Granville  Sharp  had  found  and 
noted  the  following  passage  in  Blackstone's  Commentaries,  Book  I.,  page 
123,  Edition  1st — ‘ xknd  this  spirit  of  liberty  is  so  deeply  implanted  in  our 
C onstitution,  and  rooted  in  our  very  soil,  that  a slave  or  a negro,  the  moment 
he  lands  in  England,  falls  under  the  protection  of  the  laws,  and,  with  regard 
to  all  national  rights,  becomes  eo  instanti,  a freeman.’ 

“ This  passage  being  quoted  in  one  of  the  trials,  was  triumphantly  repelled 
by  the  opposite  counsel,  who  produced  the  volume  from  which  the  quotation 
was  made,  and  instead  of  the  words  as  noted  by  Granville  Sharp,  read  as 
follows:  1 A negro,  the  moment  he  lands *in  England,  falls  under  the  pro- 
tection of  the  laws,  and  so  far  becomes  a free  man,  though  the  master’s 
right  to  his  service  may  possibly  remain.’ 

“ Upon  further  investigation,  it  was  found  that,  in  the  course  of  the  trials. 
Dr.  Blackstone  Jiimself  had  made  this  alteration  in  the  subsequent  editions.' 
— Stuart's  Memoir  of  Sharp,  p.  19. 

Suck  was  the  condition  of  things,  when,  at  length,  a case 
• came  before  the  courts  that  presented  a fair  opportunity  to 
test  the  great  question  of  legal  slavery  in  England.  This 
i opportunity  was  improved,  and  the  issue  was  joined. 

James  Somerset  “had  been  brought  to  England  in  November,  1769,  by 
his  master,  Charles  Stewart,  from  Virginia,  and  in  process  of  time  had  left 
him.  Stewart  had  him  suddenly  seized,  and  carried  on  board  the  Ann  and 
Mary,  Captain  Knowles,  in  order  to  be  taken  to  Jamaica,  and  there  sold  foi 
a slave.” 

“ On  February  7,  1772,  the  cause  was  tried  in  the  King’s  Bench,  before 
Lord  Chief  Justice  Mansfield,  aided  by  Justices  Ashton,  Welles  and  Ash- 
hurst.  The  question  at  issue  was — ‘ Is  every  man  in  England  entitled  to 
the  liberty  of  his  person,  unless  forfeited  by  the  laws  of  England?’  This 
was  affirmed  by  the  advocates  of  Somerset ; and  Mr.  Sergeant  Davy,  who 

4 


50 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


opened  his  cause,  broadly  declared,  ‘ that  no  man  at  this  day  is,  or  can  be, 
a slave  in  England.’  ” — Stuart's  Memoir,  p.  11. 

In  the  course  of  the  argument  a precedent  was  adduced  in 
favor  of  freedom.  “ This  was  the  case  of  Cartwright,  who 
brought  a slave  from  Russia,  and  would  scourge  him.  For 
this  he  was  questioned,  and  it  was  resolved,  that  England  ivas 
too  pure  an  air  for  slaves  to  breathe  in.” — See  Rushivorth’s  Collec- 
tions, p.  468.  This  was  in  the  11th  of  Queen  Elizabeth. — lb. 

Lord  Mansfield  was  evidently  beginning  to  waver. 

I 

“ In  order  that  time  might  be  given  for  ascertaining  the  law  fully  on  this  , 
head,  the  case  was  argued  at  three  different  sittings.  First  in  January, 
secondly  in  February,  and  thirdly  in  May,  1772.  And  that  no  decision  1 , 
otherwise  than  what  the  law  warranted,  might  be  given,  the  opinion  of  the 
judges  were  taken  on  the  pleadings.” — Clarkson's  Hist.  p.  43. 

“ Granville  Sharp  availed  himself,  with  his  usual  zeal,  of  this  interval,  I ( 
and,  among  the  other  measures  by  which  he  sought  to  obtain  an  equitable 
decision,  lie  addressed  a Letter  to  Lord  North,  dated  Feb.  18th,  1772.” — 
Stuart's  Memoir,  p.  12. 

In  this  Letter  Mr.  Sharp  anticipates  a decision  of  the  courts!  ? 
against  slavery,  and  says — "We  must  judge  by  law,  not  by  ( 
precedent.” — He  further  intimates  the  illegality  of  slavery  in: 
the  American  Colonies,  in  the  following  paragraph  : ! c 

“ I might  indeed  allege  that  many  of  the  plantation  laws  (like  every  other 
act  that  contains  anything  which  is  malum  in  se,  evil  in  its  own  nature,)  1 
are  already  null  and  void  in  themselves  ; because  they  want  every  necessary 
foundation  to  render  them  valid,  being  absolutely  contradictory  to  the  laws;  0 
of  reason  and  equity,  as  well  as  the  laws  of  God.” — lb.  p.  13.  J 

By  this  time  the  eyes  of  the  British  public,  from  the  mem-  “ 
bers  of  the  administration  down  to  the  mass  of  the  intelligent  ll 
inhabitants,  were  fixed  upon  Lord  Mansfield  and  the  Court  1 
of  King’s  Bench,  awaiting,  with  deep  interest  and  anxious  1 
suspense,  their  decision.  It  was  a healthful  scrutiny,  not 
unfelt  by  the  Lord  Chief  Justice  and  his  associates.  New  and  ® 
enlarged  views  of  the  nature  and  character  of  LAW  had  beenj  ® 
impressed  upon  the  nation  and  upon  the  national  judiciary,  : 
by  the  tireless  labors  and  profound  investigations  of  Gran- 
ville Sharp.  And  yet  it  required  a desperate  struggle  to  es 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM.  51 

break  away  from  the  meshes  of  precedent  and  opinion,  and 
restore  the  ascendancy  of  impartial  and  equitable  law. 

“ Lord  Mansfield  delayed  judgment,  and  twice  threw  out  the  suggestion 
‘ that  the  master  might  put  an  end  to  the  present  litigation,  by  manumitting 
the  slave.’  But  the  base  suggestion  was,  providentially,  not  attended  to. 
The  judgment  was  demanded;  and  the  judgment  was  given  on  Monday, 
22d  of  June,  1772.  After  much  lawyer-like  circumlocution,  Lord  Mans- 
field decided  as  follows  : 

Immemorial  usage  preserves  the  memory  of  positive  law , long  after  all 
traces  of  the  occasion,  reason,  authority,  and  time  of  its  introduction  are 
lost,  and  in  a case  so  odious  as  the  condition  of  slaves,  must  be  taken 
strictly  : (tracing  the  subject  to  natural  principles,  the  claim  of  slavery  can 
\ never  be  supported.)  The  power  claimed  by  this  return  never  was  in  use 
here.  We  cannot  say  the  cause  set  forth  in  this  return  is  allowed  or 
approved  of  by  the  laws  of  this  kingdom,  and  therefore  the  man  must  be 
discharged.”— Stuart’s  Memoir,  p.  17.  “ Mr.  Sharp  felt  it  his  duty,  imme- 

diately after  this  trial,  to  write”  (again)  “ to  Lord  North,  then  prinoipal 
minister  of  State,  warning  him,  in  the  most  earnest  manner,  to  abolish, 
i immediately,  both  the  slave  trade  and  the  slavery  of  the  human  species, 
in  all  the  British  dominions,  as  utterly  irreconcilable  with  the  principles 
cf  the  British  Constitution,  and  the  established  religion  of  the  land.” — 
Clarkson's  Hist.,  p.  44. 

The  measure  here  insisted  on  by  Granville  Sharp,  was  evi- 
dently required  by  the  decision  of  the  Somerset  case,  and  had 
it  been  carried  into  effect,  at  that  time,  there  would  have  been 
no  slavery  now  in  the  United  States. 

Mr.  Clarkson  awards  much  credit  to  the  counsel  employed 
on  this  trial,  Davy,  Glynn,  Hargrave,  Mansfield,  and  Alleyne, 
but  chiefly  to  Granville  Sharp,  “ who  became  the  first  great 
actor  in  it,  who  devoted  his  time,  his  talents,  and  his  substance 
to  this  Christian  undertaking,  and  by  whose  laborious 
researches  the  very  pleaders  themselves  were  instructed  and 
benefited.” — p.  44. 

“ It  ought  to  be  remembered  that,  while  Granville  Sharp  thus  boldly 
remonstrated  with  the  government  of  his  country,  he  filled  a government 
situation,  and  was  dependent  for  his  present  subsistence,  and  his  future  pros- 
pects in  life,  upon  the  ministry  of  the  day.” — Stuart's  Memoir,  p.  15. 

Thus  was  the  guilty  fiction  of  legal  slavery  in  England 
i exploded,  after  having  been  acted  upon  as  though  it  were  a 


52 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


truth,  for  at  least  three-fourths  of  a century,  and  confirmed 

by  the  highest  official  authority  for  forty-three  years.  Of  the 

magnitude,  the  importance,  and  the  legal  consequences  of  this 

judicial  decision,  which  forever  settled  the  slave  question  in 

England,  without  legislative  action  or  executive  interference, 

we  propose  not  to  speak  here.  In  another  connection  it  may 

be  adverted  to  again.  Yery  possibly  its  study  may  assist  in 

the  detection  and  correction  of  similar  mistakes  in  the  judicial 

action  of  other  countries,  besides  England.  If  York  and 

Talbot,  and  Blackstone  and  Mansfield  were  mistaken,  other 
7 b 7 
learned  judges  may  be.  If,  under  the  British  monarchy,  a 

private  individual  may  peacefully  revolutionize  the  jurispru- 
dence of  his  country,  it  cannot  be  out  of  place,  nor  arrogant 
for  the  friends  of  liberty  in  republican  America  to  study,  to 
understand,  to  insist  upon  the  principles  of  constitutional  and 
common  law,  in  their  bearing  upon  the  same  great  practical 
question,  in  their  own  country,  as  Granville  Sharp  did  in  his. 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM, 


53 


CHAPTER  VIE 

OF  EFFORTS  FOR  ABOLISHING  THE  AFRICAN  SLAVE  TRADE. 


Relaxation  of  effort — American  Revolution— Sharp  espouses  the  cause  of  the  Colo- 
nies— Thomas  Clarkson’s  early  life — Granville  Sharp — Slave  ship  “ Zong”  (17S1) 
— Trial  of  this  case  (1783) — Slave-traders  sustained — Sharp’s  Report  of  the  Trial 
—Committee  instituted  to  act  against  the  Slave  Trade  (1787) — Unfortunate 
Compromise — Policy  of  opposing  the  Slave  Tradey  hut  not  Slavery — Solemn  Pro- 
test of  Granville  Sharp — William  Wilberforce — Public  Agitation — Abstinence 
from  Slave  Products — Wilberforce  denounced  in  the  House  of  Lords — Influence 
of  John  Wesley — of  the  Quakers — the  Baptists — Inquiry  in  King’s  Privy  Council, 
1788;  also  in  House  of  Commons,  introduced  by  Wm.  Pitt — Dates  of  various 
movements  in  Parliament  till  1806 — Slave  Trade  abolished  in  Parliament  in  1807 — 
Beview  of  this  struggle — Slavery  declared  illegal  in  1772,  yet  the  Slave  Trade 
tolerated  till  1S07 — The  turning  point — The  legality  of  the  Slave  Trade — Pitt 
proved  it  illegal — Abolition  of  the  Slave  Trade  abortive — Premature  and  misplaced 
gratulation  and  triumph.  Mr.  Clarkson’s  late  retraction  of  his  grand  error  (1845). 
Testimony  to  the  impossibility  of  suppressing  the  traffic  while  Slavery  continued 
(1845) — Continued  profitableness  of  the  Slave  Trade — Increased  horrors  of  the 
Middle  Passage— Slave  Trade  actually  increased  instead  of  being  suppressed. 

The  speedy  and  glorious  success  of  the  efforts  of  Granville 
Sharp  and  a few  others  for  uprooting  slavery  from  the  soil  of 
Great  Britain,  should  have  encouraged  Christian  philanthro- 
pists, in  both  hemispheres,  one  would  think,  to  co-operate  in 
similar  efforts  to  uproot  slavery  throughout  the  colonial  pos- 
sessions of  Great  Britain,  over  which  the  same  great  principles 
of  the  British  Constitution,  and  of  English  Common  Law, 
were  recognized  as  holding  paramount  authority.  It  is  not 
improbable  that  the  growing  difficulties  between  the  North 
American  colonies  and  the  mother  country,  ripening  into  a 
civil  war,  soon  after  the  decision  of  the  Somerset  case,  may  have 
interrupted  the  correspondence  just  beginning  to  be  opened 


54 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


between  the  friends  of  liberty  in  the  two  countries.  The  Brit- 
ish West  India  Islands,  however,  might  have  presented  a field 
of  operation  for  the  abolitionists  in  England,  though  there 
may  have  been  none  in  the  islands  to  co-operate  with  them. 

From  some  cause,  no  such  efforts  were  made.  Granville 
Sharp,  in  1774,  published  a tract  in  favor  of  the  rights  of  the 
American  colonies,  of  which  he  presented  two  hundred  and 
fifty  copies  to  Dr.  Franklin,  who  dispatched  them  to  America. 
“ It  was  immediately  and  extensively  republished  in  the  colo- 
nies.” The  next  year,  1775,  on  hearing  of  the  commence- 
ment of  hostilities,  near  Boston,  he  retired  from  the  post  be 
had  held  under  the  British  administration,  which  was  his  only 
means  of  subsistence. — Stuart's  Memoir  of  Sharp , pp.  21,  22. 

The  entire  period  of  the  American  Revolutionary  War,  ter- 
minating in  1783,  appears  to  have  been  marked  by  an  almost 
total  suspension  of  active  labors  on  the  part  of  the  friends  of 
the  negroes  in  England.  And  when,  not  long  after,  their  la- 
bors were  renewed,  they  took  the  form  of  opposition  to  the 
African  slave  trade , the  horrible  cruelties  of  which,  at  that 
time,  having  been,  in  some  cases,  exposed,  excited  the  sympa- 
thies and  the  indignation  of  many  who  had  never  reflected 
profoundly  upon  the  iniquity  involved  in  the  slave  system 
itself. 

Thomas  Clarkson,  the  chief  actor,  for  a long  time,  in  this 
enterprise,  then  a young  man,  a student  at  Cambridge,  had 
obtained,  a college  prize  for  an  Essay  on  the  Slave  Trade, 
which  was  printed  in  1785,  and  attracted  some  attention. 
He  frankly  confessed  afterwards,  that  his  only  motive,  in  the 
first  place,  was  “ that  of  other  young  men  in  the  University, 
the  wish  of  being  distinguished,  or  of  obtaining  literary  honor.” 
But  the  facts  he  had  collected,  made  so  deep  an  impression 
upon  him,  that  he  soon  “interested  himself  in  it,  from  a mo- 
tive of  duty,”  and  afterwards  relinquished  his  prospects  of 
promotion  in  the  profession  of  a clergyman  in  the  established 
church,  for  which  he  was  preparing,  in  order  to  devote  him- 
self to  the  enterprise  of  abolishing  the  African  slave  trade. — - 
Clarkson's  History , pp.  79-86. 


Slavery  and  freedom. 


55 


The  attention  of  Granville  Sharp,  some  time  previous,  had 
■ been  intensely  directed  to  the  slave  trade,  by  a most  thrilling 
illustration  of  its  atrocity.  The  slave  ship  Zong,  Captain  Col- 
i lingwood,  from  Africa,  freighted  with  slaves  for  Jamaica,  in 
1781,  was  visited  with  a dreadful  mortality  among  the  slaves. 
Under  a false  pretence  of  scarcity  of  water,  the  captain  ordered  a 
j large  number  of  the  sick  slaves  thrown  overboard,  that  the  loss 
might  fall  on  the  insurers,  (as  merchandize  thrown  overboard 
for  the  safety  of  the  vessel,)  instead  of  falling  on  the  owners, 
if  they  died  from  sickness.  The  question  growing  out  of  this 
transaction,  and  before  the  court,  in  1783,  was  not  concerning 
the  murder  of  these  men,  but  simply  whether  the  owners  or 
the  insurers  should  lose  the  pecuniary  amount  of  their  value  ! 
The  Solicitor-General,  J.  Lee,  said : 

“ This  is  a case  of  goods  and  chattels.  It  is  really  so  ; it  is  a case  of 
throwing  over  goods,  for,  to  this  purpose,  and  for  the  purpose  of  insurance, 
they  are  goods  and  property ; whether  right  or  wrong,  we  have  nothing  to 
do  with  it.” 

Lord  Mansfield  said : 

“ The  matter  left  to  the  jury  is — Was  it  from  necessity  1 for  they  (the 
court)  had  no  doubt  (though  it  shocks  one  very  much)  that  the  case  of 
slaves  is  the  same  as  if  horses  had  been  thrown  overboard.  It  is  a very 
shocking  case.” 

The  verdict  of  the  jury,  on  the  first  trial,  was  for  the  captain 
and  owners.  A new  trial  was  granted,  and  the  insurers  gained 
their  cause.  But  no  criminal  prosecution  could  be  had  against 
the  murderers  ! Any  such  accusation,  legal  gentlemen  agreed, 
“would  argue  nothing  less  than  madness!” — Clarkson's  His- 
tory, p.  45.  Stuart’s  Memoirs , pp.  29-31. 

Granville  Sharp  “ was  present  at  this  trial,  and  procured  the  attendance 
of  a short-hand  writer,  to  take  down  the  facts,”  “ which  he  communicated 
to  the  public  afterwards.  He  communicated  them  also,  with  a copy  of  the 
trial,  to  the  Lords  of  the  Admiralty,  as  guardians  of  justice  on  the  high 
seas,  and  to  the  Duke  of  Portland,  as  Minister  of  State.  No  notice,  how- 
ever, was  taken,  by  any  of  these,  of  the  information  which  had  thus  been 
sent  to  them.” — Clarkson,  p.  46. 


56 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


In  his  address  to  the  Duke  of  Portland,  Mr.  Sharp  warned 
him  of  “ the  absolute  necessity  to  abolish  the  slave  trade,  and 
West  Indian  slavery .” — Stuart,  p.  31. 

It  is  easy  to  conceive  that  while  the  public  sympathy  was 
so  strongly  acted  upon  by  such  astounding  developments  con- 
cerning the  slave  trade,  an  effort  for  its  abolition  would  be 
more  likely  to  win  at  once  a cheap  general  favor,  than  an  ef- 
fort for  the  abolition  of  slavery.  But  benevolent  enterprises, 
founded  on  mere  sj^mpathy,  are  not  likely  to  be  as  wisely  di- 
rected, as  consistently  supported,  or  as  really  and  permanently 
successful  as  those  that  are  likewise  seen  to  be  deeply  imbed- 
ded and  fortified  in  the  fundamental  principles  of  moral  right. 
The  history  of  the  nominal  abolition  of  the  African  slave 
trade  is  deeply  interesting,  as  affording  a striking  exemplifi- 
cation of  one  class  of  these  experiments. 

The  committee  instituted  in  June  1787,  for  “ effecting  the 
abolition  of  the  slave  trade,”  was  composed  of  twelve  members, 
nine  of  whom  were  Quakers.  Of  the  three  others,  one  was 
Thomas  Clarkson,  and  one  was  Granville  Sharp,  the  latter  of 
whom  was  appointed  chairman.  An  earnest  discussion  took 
place  in  the  committee,  on  the  question  whether  they  should 
direct  their  efforts  against  the  slave  trade  alone,  or  against  the 
slave  trade  and  slavery.  All  the  members,  except  Granville 
Sharp,  were  in  favor  of  acting  only  against  the  slave  trade. 

The  arguments  in  favor  of  this  course  are  stated  in  his  his- 
tory, at  some  length,  by  Mr.  Clarkson.  Two  distinct  evils, 
the  slave  trade  and  slavery,  presented  themselves,  he  says,  to 
their  attention,  and  both  needing  removal.  “ It  soon  appeared 
to  the  committee  that  to  aim  at  the  removal  of  both,  would  be 
to  aim  at  too  much,  and  that  b}r  doing  this,  we  might  lose  all.” 
“The  question  then  was,  which  of  the  two  would  they  take 
as  their  object.”  “By  aiming  at  the  slave  trade,  they  were 
laying  the  axe  at  the  very  root.”  Pp.  27,  28. 

This  view  is  the  more  remarkable  as  being  found  in  the 
same  volume  in  which  the  same  writer  had  said : “ All  history 
shows,  from  the  time  of  Joseph,  that  where  there  is  a market 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


57 


for  the  persons  of  human  beings,  all  kinds  of  enormities  will 
be  practiced  to  obtain  them.”  P.  39. 

It  is  still  more  mortifying  to  find  Mr.  Clarkson,  at  different 
points  in  the  succeeding  history,  in  the  attitude  of  disclaiming 
on  behalf  of  the  committee,  any  intention  of  promoting  eman- 
cipation. Thus,  in  his  intercourse  with  Mirabeau,  and  the 
French  National  Assembly : 

“ Emancipation  is  now  stated  to  be  the  object  of  the  friends  ot  the 
negroes.  This  charge  I repelled,  by  addressing  myself  to  Monsieur  Beau- 
vet.  I explained  to  him  the  views  of  the  different  societies  which  had 
taken  up  the  cause  of  the  Africans,  and  I desired  him  to  show  my  letters  to 
the  planters." — p.  241. 

Though  it  was  held  by  the  committee,  including  Mr.  Clark- 
son, that  “ in  aiming  at  the  slave  trade  they  were  striking  at 
the  root,”  yet,  in  his  “ Summary  View  of  the  Slave  Trade, 
and  of  the  probable  consequences  of  its  abolition,”  Mr.  Clark- 
son apparently  labors  to  reconcile  the  abolition  of  the  slave 
trade  with  the  continuance  and  increase  of  slave-holding,  a view 
which  seems  designed  to  conciliate  the  planters. 

“ If  the  slaves  were  kindly  treated  in  our  colonies,  they  would  increase. 
The  abolition  of  the  slave  trade  would  necessarily  secure  such  a treatment, 
and  would  produce  many  other  advantages,”  &c. — p.  96. 

The  same  view  was  afterwards  taken  by  Mr.  Wilberforce 
and  Mr.  Pitt,  in  their  speeches  ip  Parliament.  Little  did  they 
imagine  that  the  slave  trade , though  legally  abolished,  would 
survive  and  flourish  after  the  actual  abolition  of  slavery  in  the 
British  colonies,  because  slavery  would  exist  elsewhere. 

Even  at  the  time  of  writing  his  History  of  the  enterprise, 
Mr.  Clarkson  seems  to  have  entertained  a high  opinion  of  the 
sagacity  of  the  committee  in  making  this  decision. 

“ Thus,  at  the  very  outset,”  says  he,  “ they  took  a ground  which  was 
forever  tenable.  Thus  they  were  enabled  to  answer  the  objection  which 
was  afterwards  so  constantly  and  so  industriously  circulating  against  them, 
that  they  were  going  to  emancipate  the  slaves.  And  I have  no  doubt  that 
this  was  a wise  decision,  contributing  greatly  to  their  success,  for  I am  per- 
suaded that  if  they  had  adopted  the  other  object,  they  would  not,  for  years, 
if  ever,  have  succeeded  in  their  attempt.” — Clarkson's  History , p.  98. 


58 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


What  kind  of  “success  ” was  realized,  after  twenty  years 
of  labor,  and  forty  more  of  triumph  and  gratulation,  will  be 
seen  in  the  sequel. 

Granville  Sharp  stood  alone  in  the  committee,  in  opposing 
their  decision  in  this  matter. 

“ He  solemnly  and  vehemently  remonstrated  with  the  Committee  against 
the  resolution  which  they  had  adopted.  He  declared  that,  ‘ as  slavery  was 
as  much  a crime  against  God  as  the  slave  trade , it  became  the  committee 
to  exert  themselves  equally  against  the  continuance  of  both,  and  he  did  not 
hesitate  to  pronounce  all  present  guilty  before  God,  for  shutting  those  who 
wrere  then  slaves  out  of  the  pale  of  their  approaching  labors.’  He  delivered 
this  protest  with  a loud  voice,  a powerful  emphasis,  and  both  hands  lifted 
up  towards  heaven,  as  was  usual  with  him  when  much  moved.  The  Com- 
mittee acknowledged  the  criminality  of  both  to  be  the  same,  but  they  ad- 
hered to  their  resolution,  fearing  that  if  they  attacked,  at  once,  both  slavery 
and  the  slave  trade,  they  would  succeed  against  neither.” — Stuart's  Me- 
moir of  Sharp,  p.  56. 

Having  delivered  this  testimony,  and  conceiving,  as  he 
seems  to  have  done,  that  the  responsibility  rested  on  him  no 
longer,  he  consented  to  act  with  the  committee,  though  with 
spch  singular  modesty,  (notwithstanding  his  Christian  bold- 
ness) that  “he  would  never  assume  the  chair” — “while  he 
sustained  the  responsibility  and  discharged  the  duty  of  the 
office.”* 

“ I have  attended  above  seven  hundred  Committees  and  Sub-Committees 
with  him,”  says  Clarkson,  “yet,  though  sometimes  but  few  were  present, 
he  always  seated  himself  at  the  end  of  the  room  ; choosing  rather  to  serve 
the  glorious  cause,  in  humility,  through  conscience,  than  in  the  character  of 
a distinguished  individual.” 

Among  the  early  patrons  of  the  enterprise  of  abolishing 
the  slave  trade,  was  William  Wilberforce,  member  of  Parlia- 
ment, with  whom  Mr.  Clarkson,  Mr.  Sharp,  and  several  others, 
had  been  in  the  habit  of  holding  consultations  before  the 
organization  of  the  Committee,  and  preliminary  to  that  mea- 
sure. 

Mr.  Clarkson,  at  the  request  of  the  Committee,  visited 


* Vide  Stuart's  Memoir , p.  56. 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


59 


; several  different  commercial  cities  in  the  kingdom,  to  obtain 
farther  information,  before  commencing  the  agitation  of  the 
subject  in  Parliament.  He  likewise  visited  France,  to  secure 
the  co-operation  of  the  French  National  Assembly;  but  this 
mission  was  a failure.  Correspondence  was  likewise  held 
with  friends  of  the  cause  in  America,  and  their  co-operation 
secured,  to  effect  the  abolition  of  the  slave  trade  by  our 
Government.  The  public  mind  was  operated  upon  in  various 
ways.  A sentiment  averse  to  the  use  of  slave-grown  products 
was  cherished  in  the  literature  of  the  country.  At  one  period, 
the  school  books,  both  of  England  and  of  the  United  States, 
abounded  in  expressions  of  this  sentiment. 

“ Three  hundred  thousand  persons,  at  this  period,  refrained  from  sugar 
altogether,  perceiving  that  by  using  it  they  were  directly  supporting  the 
slave  system  they  abhorred.  Three  hundred  and  ten  petitions  were  pre- 
sented from  England,  one  hundred  and  eighty-seven  from  Scotland,  and 
twenty  from  Wales.” — Stuart's  Memoir,  p.  51-2. 

Could  this  sentiment  against  the  use  of  slave  products  have 
arisen  to  the  dignity  of  a moral  principle , in  the  minds  of 
these  philanthropists,  and  had  it  been  guided  by  a sufficient 
degree  of  reflection  and  intelligence,  it  might  have  suggested 
the  necessity  of  an  enterprise  against  Slavery — which  fur- 
nishes slave  products — as  well  as  against  the  slave  trade. 

As  it  was,  the  country  was  extensively  agitated,  and  a vio- 
lent opposition  was  roused,  which  was  continued  for  twenty 
years,  led  on  by  some  of  the  principal  men  of  the  nation,  and 
sustained  by  the  entire  West  India  interest.  In  the  cities  the 
opposition  was  violent.  At  Liverpool,  attempts  were  made 
to  throw  Mr.  Clarkson  into  the  dock.  In  the  House  of  Lords, 
the  abolitionists  were  stigmatized  by  the  Duke  of  Clarence, 
afterwards  King  William  IV.,  “ as  fanatics  and  hypocrites, 
among  whom  he  included  Mr.  Wilberforce,  by  name.”*  Many 
years  afterwards,  he  had  the  honor  of  giving  the  royal  assent 
to  a bill  for  abolishing,  not  the  African  slave  trade,  but  slavery 
itself,  in  the  West  Indies! — A more  protracted  or  a more  vio- 


* Claris  son's  History , p.  323. 


60 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


lent  contest  could  hardly  have  been  witnessed,  had  the  effort 
been  made  against  slavery  itself.  While  the  ranks  of  the 
opposition  could  have  done  nothing  more,  the  friends  of  the 
negroes  would  have  been  doubly  armed  with  the  whole  pano- 
ply of  divine  truth,  and  would  have  been  spared  those  pitiful 
and  indefensible  disclaimers  that  so  much  crippled  and  em- 
barrassed them,  and  their  successors,  at  a later  day. 

We  must  not  forget  to  notice  the  important  fact,  that  during 
the  whole  of  this  contest  against  the  slave  trade,  as  in  the 
previous  one  of  Granville  Sharp  against  slavery  in  England, 
the  conscience  and  the  humanity  of  the  country  were  neither 
counteracted  nor  unsustained  by  the  religion  of  the  country. 
Churches  and  Ministers,  so  far  from  opposing  human  progress 
and  liberty,  very  extensively  regarded  it  their  proper  business 
to  urge  them  onward.  The. Society  of  Friends,  having  pre- 
viously purged  their  own  community,  were  ready  to  cast  their 
influence  on  the  right  side. 

But  the  Friends  were  not  alone.  The  eloquent  and  cele- 
brated letter  of  John  Wesley,  on  his  death-bed,  (1791)  to 
William  Wilberforce,  is  to  be  regarded  not  merely  as  an  ex- 
pression of  his  own  personal  feelings  in  respect  to  the  pending 
contest,  but  as  a specimen  of  the  religious  sentiment  in  the 
midst  of  which  he  was  moving,  and  which  it  was  the  business 
of  his  life  to  commend  and  communicate  to  others,  as  belong- 
ing to  the  sanctification  which  fits  men  for  heaven.  In  this 
letter  the  opponents  of  abolition  are  alluded  to  as  the  confed- 
erates of  “ devils,”  and  American  slavery  is  denominated 
“the  vilest  that  ever  saw  the  sun.”  This  was  Methodism, 
when  Methodism  was  vitalized  by  the  Spirit  of  God,  and 
clothed  with  Divine  power. 

But  Baptists  in  England  were  not  behind  Methodists,  at 
this  period,  nor  have  they  since  been.  It  was  during  the  pro- 
gress of  this  same  contest,  and  very  nearly  at  the  same  date, 
that  “ one  of  the  ablest  writers  and  soundest  divines  who  have 
ever  adorned  the  Baptist  denomination,  good  old  Abraham 
Booth,”  by  his  preaching  and  in  his  correspondence  (1792)  with 
brethren  in  America,  bore  a similar  testimony.  He,  too, 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


61 


along  -with  Grotius,  and  "Wesley,  and  Edvards,  and  Porteus, 
and  Macknight,  and  Scott,  and  tke  American  Presbyterian 
Church,  (previous  to  1818),  understood  that  modern  slave- 
holding falls  under  the  condemnation  of  “man-stealing,”  as 
prohibited  by  Moses,  in  Exodus  21  : 16,  and  condemned  by 
Paul  in  1 Tim.  1 : 10.  The  sermon  of  Eld.  James  Dove  was 
still  earlier,  (1789,)  and  had  direct  and  special  reference  to  the 
same  great  struggle,  in  which  no  good  men  were  neutral. 

ISot  only  Baptist  ministers  but  Baptist  Churches  and  Bap- 
tist Associations  in  England,  came  up  to  the  work,  in  good 
earnest.  The  idea  that  the  enterprise  was  too  secular  or  too 
political  for  the  co-operation  of  churches  and  ecclesiastical 
bodies,  seems  not  to  have  embarrassed  them.* 

The  King  directed  a privy  council  to  consider  the  state  of 


* “ The  Elders  and  Messengers  of  the  several  Baptist  Churches  meeting  at  Fal- 
mouth, Chasewater,  Plymouth  Dock,  Plymouth,”  and  (twelve  other  Churches) 
‘‘having  received  letters  also  from  Portsmouth,  Sarum”  (and  twenty  other  churches 
— making  3S  Churches  in  all),  “ being  met  in  association  at  Plymouth,  May  25-6, 
1790,  a letter  received  last  year  from  Granville  Sharp,  Esq.,  was  read,  and  a third 
benefaction  of  five  guineas  was  voted  to  the  treasurer  of  the  truly  noble  Committee 
for  the  Abolition  of  the  Slave  Trade,  as  a further  testimony  of  our  high  approbation 
of  their  zealous  efforts  to  remove  so  great  an  evil.” 

“ Northampton  and,  other  Churches  in  Association. 

“ Oakham , June  IP-15,  1791. 

“ It  was  unanimously  voted  that  five  guineas  be  sent  up  to  the  treasurer  of  the 
Society  for  Procuring  the  Abolition  of  the  Slave  Trade,”  &e.  A part  of  the  state- 
ment speaks  of  “ the  iniquitous,  disgraceful  practices  of  slave-dealing  and  slave- 
holders.''' 

“ Baptist  Association , I Tooten-under-edge, 

“ June  1A-15,  1791. 

“Voted,  particularly,  a fourth  benefaction  of  five  guineas  to  the  Committee  for 
Abolishing  the  Slave  Trade.” 

Similar  minutes  are  on  record  of  the  Northamptonshire  Association. 

Tork  and  Lancashire  Association. — “The  ministers,  met  in  association  at  Salen- 
dine,  June  15-16,  1791,  send  Christian  salutations  to  the  several  Churches  with 
which  they  are  connected”  (here  follow  their  names,  eighteen  in  number),  &c. 

Then  follows  a letter  from  the  ministers  to  these  Churches,  urging  upon  them 
renewed  and  continued  effort  in  the  cause  of  abolition,  adding:  “Ye  friends  of 
humanity,  heaven  will  reward  and  approve  your  conduct.” 

[Sed  “ Facts  for  Baptist  Churches,  by  A.  T.  Foss  and  E.  Mathews.  Utica : Pub- 
lished by  the  American  Baptist  Free  Mission  Society,”  1850 — a book  of  40S  pages, 
and  containing  a mass  of  documentary  information,  chiefly  concerning  Baptists  in 
America.] 


62 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


the  African  Slave  Trade,  in  February,  1788.  In  May  of  the 
same  year,  the  same  subject  of  inquiry  was  introduced  into 
the  House  of  Commons,  by  Mr.  Pitt,  during  the  sickness  of 
Mr.  Wilberforce.  The  investigation  was  urged  by  Pitt,  Wil- 
berforce,  Fox,  and  Burke,  but  delayed  by  opposition,  un- 
til, in  April,  1791,  Mr.  Wilberforce  moved  for  leave  to  bring 
in  a bill  to  prevent  the  further  importation  of  slaves  into  the 
colonies.  After  a long  debate,  the  motion  was  lost.  He  re- 
newed his  motion  in  1792,  when  an  amendment  in  favor  of 
gradual  abolition  prevailed  in  the  Commons,  but  was  not  acted 
upon  in  the  House  of  Lords. 

“In  1793,  Mr.  Wilberforce  renewed  and  lost  his  motion.  In  1794,  he 
renewed  and  carried  it  in  the  House  of  Commons,  but  the  House  of  Lords 
rejected  it.  In  1795-6,  the  effort  was  renewed  and  negatived.  In  1797, 
an  address  was  carried  to  the  king.  In  1798-9,  Mr.  Wilberforce  renewed 
his  motion,  and  was  defeated,  but  Dr.  Horsley,  Bishop  of  Rochester,  in  the 
House  of  Lords,  nobly  and  effectually  vindicated  Scripture  from  the  blas- 
phemous imputation  of  tolerating  slavery .” — Stuart's  Memoir , p.  54. 

So  the  argument  must  needs  be  made  against  slavery , though 
the  proposition  was  only  to  abolish  the  traffic  from  Africa ! 
And  the  Bible  argument,  from  the  lips  of  religious  teachers, 
must  needs  precede  legislative  action. 

From  1799  till  1801,  the  agitation  in  Parliament  was  sus- 
pended ; but,  in  the  mean  time,  public  sentiment  appears  to 
have  undergone  a favorable  change,  and  in  Parliament  the 
cause  was  strengthened  by  the  accession  of  the  new  represen- 
tation from  Ireland. 

"In  1804,  the  bill  passed  the  Commons,  but  its  discussion 
was  deferred  in  the  House  of  Lords. 

“In  1805,  Wilberforce  renewed  his  motion,  but  lost  it.  Mr. 
Pitt,  who  had  thus  far  fostered  the  bill,  soon  after  died. 

In  1806,  a bill  was  introduced  by  Sir  Arthur  Piggott,  to 
give  effect  to  a previous  proclamation  of  the  King,  restricting 
and  crippling,  in  some  particulars,  the  slave  trade.  This  bill 
passed  both  houses,  whereupon  Mr.  Fox  moved  “That  the 
House,  considering  the  slave  trade  to  be  contrary  to  the  prin- 
ciples of  justice,  humanity  and  polic}^  will,  with  all  practica- 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


63 


ble  expedition,  take  effectual  measures  for  its  abolition.” — 
“ This  was  carried  by  a majority  of  114  to  15  in  the  Commons, 
and  41  to  20  in  the  Lords.  Mr.  Fox  died  before  the  next 
session.” 

“ In  1807,  Lord  Granville  brought  into  the  House  of  Lords 
a Bill  for  the  Abolition  of  the  Slave  Trade.”  After  mature 
discussion,  during  which,  counsel  was  heard  against  it,  four 
days,  the  Bill  was  passed  in  the  House  of  Lords,  100  to  36, 
and  the  House  of  Commons,  283  to  16.  It  received,  almost 
immediately,  the  Boyal  assent.  This  was  March  16th,  1807. 
The  bill  provided  that  no  vessel  should  clear  out  from  any 
British  port  for  slaves  after  the  1st  of  May,  1807,  nor  land 
any  in  the  colonies  after  the  1st  of  March,  1808. — Stuart's 
Memoir , p.  54.  Clarkson's  Mist,  passim. 

Similar  action  was  going  on  in  the  Governments  of  other 
nations,  or  soon  followed.  In  the  United  States,  a Statute  of 
Congress,  enacted  in  1807,  prohibited  the  importation  of 
slaves,  after  January  1,  1808.  In  1818,  Congress  declared 
the  traffic  to  be  piracy.  In  1819,  the  President  was  author- 
ized to  provide  for  the  removal  of  imported  slaves  beyond 
the  limits  of  the  United  States. 

REVIEW  OF  THIS  STRUGGLE. 

This  memorable  and  protracted  struggle  is  instructive,  in 
many  respects.  Among  other  things,  it  shows  how  blindly 
public  men  may  follow  mere  technicalities  and  precedents, 
and  how  difficult  it  is  to  overcome  the  prejudices  associated 
with  these,  in  the  effort  to  restore  the  reign  of  impartial  law. 
A similar  struggle  had  resulted  iu  the  decision  of  Lord 
Mansfield  in  the  Somerset  case,  in  1772.  The  illegality  of 
slave  holding  was  then  fully  established,  under  the  funda- 
mental principles  of  the  British  Constitution  and  Common 
Law,  which  were  not  then  first  brought  into  existence,  but 
had  been  the  same,  from  the  beginning  of  the  slave  trade. 
The  decision  had  labeled  “illegality”  upon  the  whole 
procedure,  from  beginning  to  end,  upon  the  slave  trade  as 


64 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


well  as  slavery,  -upon  the  past  slave  trade  and  slavery  as  well 
as  present,  so  far  as  the  principle  involved  was  concerned. 
To  have  admitted  that  there  had  been,  or  then  was,  any 
legality  in  the  slave  trade,  under  that  same  British  Constitu- 
tion and  Common  Law,  would  have  been,  in  effect,  to  have 
impugned  the  decision  of  Lord  Mansfield  in  the  Somerset 
case,  and  to  have  set  it  aside  as  erroneous.  No  one  thought 
of  attempting  this.  And  yet,  strange  to  tell,  the  then  present 
legality  of  the  slave  trade  appears  to  have  been  taken  for 
granted,  on  all  hands,  at  the  commencement  of  this  long  strug- 
gle for  its  Parliamentary  suppression. 

It  is  curious  to  observe,  that  while  in  America,  at  the  pre- 
sent-time, slave  holding  is  held  to  be  legal  and  not  disreputa- 
ble, and  yet  the  slave  trade  is  branded  as  piracy  ; the  corres- 
ponding prejudice  in  England  took  an  opposite  direction; 
insomuch  that  slave  holding  was  considered  a high  crime, 
while  around  the  slave  trade  was  supposed  to  cluster  all  the 
sacred  sanctions  and  guaranties  of  obligatory  and  valid  law  ! 

It  was  not  until  this  falsehood  was  ferrited  out  of  its  hiding 
places,  dragged  into  daylight,  and  dissected  by  Mr.  Pitt,  that 
the  power  of  the  slave  trade,  in  the  Parliament,  was  broken, 
and  the  charm  of  its  invincibility,  as  an  interest  fostered  by 
the  Government,  was  dissolved. 

To  every  thing  that  could  be  urged  by  the  eloquence  of 
Wilberforce,  against  the  wickedness,  the  injustice,  the  inhu- 
manity, the  cruelty,  the  impolicy,  and  the  blighting  effects  of 
the  slave  trade,  the  ready  answer  of  the  interested  opposition 
was,  the  legality  of  the  traffic,  the  sacred  and  inviolable  guar- 
anties, the  legal  inheritance,  the  patrimonial  rights  of  the  par- 
ties concerned,  and  especially  of  the  West  India  planters,  who 
were  supposed  to  need  further  supplies  of  slaves. 

In  answer  to  Mr.  Dundas,  who,  for  the  fortieth  time,  per- 
haps, had  been  parrying  off  Parliamentary  proceedings,  by 
urging  pleas  of  this  sort,  Mr.  Pitt,  upon  whose  vision  new 
light  on  the  subject  appears  to  have  suddenly  gleamed,  rose 
up,  astonished  the  House,  and  overwhelmed  his  antagonist  by 
a bold  denial  of  the  legality  of  the  slave  trade , under  any  sup- 


SLAVERY  AND-FREEDOM. 


65 


posed  laws  of  the  realm ! He  proceeded  to  dash  in  shivers 
the  flimsy  pretext,  in  a manner  that  precluded  all  attempts  at 
reply. 

“ Any  contract,”  he  said,  “ for  the  promotion  of  this  trade  must,  in  his 
opinion,  have  been  VOID  FROM  THE  BEGINNING,  for  if  it  was  an 
outrage  upon  justice,  and  only  another  name  for  fraud,  robbery,  and  murder, 
what  pledge  could  devolve  on  the  legislature  to  incur  the  obligation  of 
becoming  principals  in  *the  commission  of  such  enormities,  by  sanctioning 
their  continuance  1 

“ But  he  would  appeal  to  the  acts  themselves.  That  of  23  George  II., 
c.  31,  was  the  one  upon  which  the  greatest  stress  ivas  laid.  How  would  the 
House  be  surprised  to  hear  that  these  very  outrages  committed  in  the  pro- 
secution of  this  trade  had  been  forbidden  by  that  act!  ‘No  master  of  a 
ship  trading  to  Africa,’  says  the  act,  ‘ shall,  by  fraud,  force,  or  violence,  or 
by  any  indirect  practice  whatever,  take  on  board  or  carry  away’ from  that 
coast  any  Negro,  or  native  of  that  country,  or  commit  any  violence  upon 
the  natives,  to  the  prejudice  of  said  trade  ; and  every  person  so  offending 
shall,  for  every  such  offence,  forfeit  one  hundred  pounds.’  But  the  whole 
trade  had  been  demonstrated  to  be  a system  of  fraud  and  violence,  and 
therefore  the  contract  was  daily  violated  under  which  the  Parliament 
allowed  it  to  continue — Clarkson's  History,  p.  314. 

Thus  was  the  notion  of  the  legality  of  the  slave  trade  ex- 
ploded, (as  that  of  the  legality  of  slavery  had  previously  been) 
and  the  mind  of  the  British  nation  forever  emancipated  from 
that  ensnaring  and  enslaving  delusion.  Thenceforward  the 
real  question  was,  how  that  lawless  traffic  could  be  suppressed 
and  terminated. 

ABOLITION  OF  THE  SLAVE  TRADE  ABORTIVE. 

One  of  the  most  instructive  though  mortifying  lessons  to 
be  deduced  from  this  history,  as  expounded  in  the  light  of  its 
results,  is  the  utter  futility  of  all  attempts  to  suppress  the 
slave  trade , without  breaking  up  the  market,  by  the  abolition 
of  slavery  itself.  So  slow  have  philanthropists  been  to  learn 
this  plain  lesson,  that,  during  one  entire  human  generation, 
the  glorious  abolition  of  the  African  slave  trade  was  celebra- 
ted by  public  demonstrations,  by  orators,  by  poets,  by  histo- 
rians, in  almost  universal  inattention  to  the  fact,  that  the  slave 

5 


G6 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


trade,  though  prohibited  by  laic , was  increasing,  both  in  ex 
tent  and  in  cruelty,  amid  all  this  misplaced  gratulation  and 
triumph. 


Disregarding  chronological 


order,  for  a few  moments,  we 


must  leap  over  a chasm  of  thirty-five  years,  to  witness  the 
historical  confirmation  of  Granville  Sharp’s  solemn  protesi 
against  the  deplorable  error  of  the  Committee. 

Mr.  Clarkson  lived  to  see  and  to  retract  the  error.  As  Prcsi 
dent  of  the  Anti-Slavery  Society,  in  1845,  he  addressed  a let 
ter  to  Lord  Aberdeen,  on  the  mode  of  suppressing  the  traffic 
in  which  he  solemnly  affirmed,  “ that  by  the  total  abolition  ol 
slavery  only,  can  the  slave  trade  be  annihilated.”  This  view 
was  .“sustained  by  the  high  authority  of  Lord  John  Russell 
who,  when  Colonial  Minister,  addressed  a communication  tc 
the  Lords  Commissioners  of  Her  Majesty’s  Treasury,  in  which 
he  says, — ‘ To  repress  the  Foreign  Slave  Trade  by  a marinf 
guard  would  scarcely  be  possible.’  ” This  view  was  afterwards 
amply  sustained  by  evidence  before  a Select  Committee  ol 
Parliament,  and  embodied  in  two  Reports  presented  to  the' 
House  of  Commons,  showing  not  only  the  increase  and  the 
horrors  of  the  Slave  Traffic,  but  the  utter  inefficiency  of  ar 
armed  force  for  its  suppression.  A number  of  Commanders 
in  the  Royal  Navy,  employed  in  that  service,  gave  explicii 
testimony  to  that  import,  and  that  the  horrors  of  the  middle 
passage  and  the  miseries  of  the  slaves  are  greatly  aggravated, 
by  the  efforts  to  suppress  the  traffic.  The  reason,  as  stated  b} 
the  witnesses,  is  obvious.  The  trade,  after  deducting  losse; 
by  deaths  on  the  passage,  yields  a profit  of  about  200  pel 
cent,  on  the  investment ! The  amount  of  re-captures,  thougl 


very  great,  and  indicating  the  vast  extent  and  briskness  of 


the  traffic,  is  only  from  four  to  ten  per  cent,  of  the  estimated 
amount  of  shipments,  and  consequently  interposes  no  seriou; 
check  to  the  business.  Yet  the  danger  of  capture  induce 
the  use  of  smaller  vessels,  in  order  to  escape  more  easily  the 
cruisers,  and  the  consequent  crowding  of  the  slaves  into 
much  smaller  space. 

The  picture  of  the  middle  passage,  in  former  times,  as  draw 


tk 


Mi 


Ifr. 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


67 


by  Mr.  Mann,  (already  quoted,)  falls  short  of  the  reality,  as 
existing  at  present.  It  was  testified  that  “in  Brazil  the  num- 
! ber  of  slaves  imported  are  now  beyond  what  they  were  before 
: Great  Britain  first  used  her  efforts  to  put  down  the  trade.” 
' Between  60,000  and  65,000  were  computed  to  have  been 
“ landed  alive  in  Brazil,  in  the  }rear  1817,  after  a loss  of  35,000 
by  deaths,  on  the  passage.  In  short,  “ the  horrors  of  the 
slave  trade  appear  to  increase,  just  in  proportion  to  the  rigor 
used  for  its  suppression.”  The  French  and  American  squad- 
rons have,  however,  done  little  or  nothing  for  the  suppression. 
And,  under  cover  of  the  American  flag,  ivhich,  by  treaty,  the 
British  cruisers  are  prohibited  from  molesting,  the  slavers,  of 
whatever  nation  frequently  defeat  the  object  of  the  British 
cruisers.  The  whole  number  of  slaves  computed  to  have  been 
“exported  from  Africa,  westward,  in  1788,  was  100,000.  The 
annual  export  from  1798  to  1805  was  computed  at  85,000. 
'{; For  the  year  1847,  it  was  computed  at  88,000.  This  shows 
that  the  decrease  of  the  slave  trade  since  the  first  organized 
agitation  on  the  subject  has  not  kept  equal  pace  with  the  ex- 
tent to  which  slavery  itself  has  been  abolished,  diminishing 
the  field  resorted  to  as  q market.  In  other  words,  if  slavery 
'now  existed,  as  it  recently  did,  in  the  British  West  Indies,  in 
' Mexico,  and  all  the  South  American  countries,  we  should  wit- 
'e  ness  a greater  amount  of  slave  exportations  from  Africa  than 
m 1788.  This  is  confirmed  by  the  fact  that  in  1825,  such  was 
• actually  the  case,  the  exportations  for  that  year  having  been 
Computed  at  125,000,  and  from  some  causes,  the  average  of 

'Exportations  from  1835  to  1840,  inclusive,  were  computed  at 

i, 

)f 

ediJ 


L35,000."  Towards  the  close  of  this  period,  Thomas  Fowell 
Buxton,  Esq.,  Member  of  Parliament,  wrote  an  account  of  the 


African  slave  trade,  in  which  he  says  : 

“ It  has  been  proved,  by  documents  which  cannot  be  controverted,  that 
or  every  village  fired,  and  every  drove  of  human  beings  marched,  in  former 
imes,  there  are  now  double.  For  every  cargo  then  at  sea,  two  cargoes, 


* See  Annual  Reports  of  the  British  and  Foreign  Anti-Slavery  Society,  for  1847 
ind  1848 ; also,  the  (British)  Anti-Slavery  Reporter,  for  August  1, 1848,  containing  an 
;bstract  of  the  evidence  before  the  Select  Committee  of  Parliament. 


68 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


or  twice  the  number  in  one  cargo,  wedged  together,  in  a mass  of  living  cor- 
ruption, are  now  borne  on  the  wave  of  the  Atlantic.” — Buxton's  Slave 
Trade,  p.  159. 

But  tlie  efforts  of  philanthropists  for  the  abolition  of  the 
African  slave  trade  were  not  wholly  in  vain.  They  demon- 
strated the  necessity  of  abolishing  slavery  itself.  They  branded 
with  the  infamy  of  piracy  the  African  slave  trade,  and,  by 
unavoidable  implication,  the  same  traffic  everywhere  else, 
thus  striking  at  the  very  idea  of  human  chattelhood  throughout 
the  world.  If  the  process  of  teaching  these  truths  has  been  a 
slow  one,  it  has  nevertheless  been  effective. 


- SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM;. 


69 


CHAPTER  Till. 

PERIOD  OF  THE  AMERICAN  REVOLUTION,  AND  THE  ESTABLISH- 
MENT OF  AN  INDEPENDENT  GOVERNMENT.  '• 

Natural  Tendencies  of  the  Revolutionary  Struggle — Its  principle  educed  from  pre- 
vious Anti-Slavery  Discussion — Originated  in  the  States  least  influenced  by 
Slavery — First  Congress  (1774:) — Action  in  favor  of  “ the  abolition  of  Domestic 
Slavery" — Resolutions  against  the  Slave  Trade — Previous  action  in  Provincial  and 
Local  Conventions — In  North  Carolina  and  Virginia — “Articles  of  Association” 
against  Slave  Trade — Concurrent  Action  in  Georgia,  Maryland,  Virginia,  and  Con- 
necticut— Anti-Slavery  Literature  of  1776 — Implied  illegality  of  Slavery — Decla- 
ration of  Independence — The  unanimous  act  of  the  Thirteen  United  States — 
“ The  Union”  formed  then,  and  not  by  the  Federal  Constitution  of  17S9 — John  Q. 
Adams — This  Declaration  equivalent  to  a Constitution  of  Government— State 
Constitutions — Articles  of  Confederation  (1778)  make  no  compromise  with  Slavery 
— Sentiments  published  by  order  of  Congress  (1779) — Jefierson’s  Notes  on  Vir- 
ginia— Peace  of  1783 — Address  of  Congress  to  the  States — Sentiments  of  promi- 
nent Statesmen — Legislation  in  Virginia. 


The  state  of  the  slave  question  in  America,  from  about  the 
time  of  the  commencement  of  the  Revolution  in  1774,  till  the 
adoption  of  the  Federal  Constitution  in  1789,  requires  to  be 
correctly  understood,  in  order  to  any  trustworthy  estimate  of 
the  bearing  of  our  political  institutions  upon  the  present 
existence  of  slavery. 

It  was  by  no  accidental  coincidence  that  the  period  of  the 
Revolution  was  the  period  of  a more  general  and  deep  seated 
opposition  to  slavery  than  had  been  before  visible,  or  than 
has  been  witnessed  since.  The  religious  sentiment  against 
slavery,  as  a Violation  of  heaven  established  rights,  a senti- 
ment that  had  been  rising  for  some  time  previous,  and  that 
was  now  beginning  to  reach  the  point  of  disfellowship  with 
slave-holders,  was  a sentiment  that  naturally  assimilated  itself 


70 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN  ■ 


with  the  rising  opposition  to  the  British  Government  for  its 
invasions  of  the  same  sacred  rights;  and  that  as  naturally  « 
sought  the  same  remedy ; to  wit,  the  separation  of  freedom 
from  the  embraces  of  despotic  power.  A spirit  of  liberty, 
humanity,  and  justice,  in  the  church,  may  be  regarded  as  the 
best  foundation  for  the  establishment  of  liberty,  humanity, 
and  justice  in  the  State,*  and  a proper  regard  for  the  rights 
of  others  will  ever  be  found  essential  to  a healthful  jealousy 
and  timely  vindication  of  our  own. 

It  is  equally  evident  that  the  rising  opposition  of  the  com- 
munity ^1  general  to  the  despotic  assumptions  of  the  British 
Government,  so  far  as  it  had  anything  in  it  like  a manly  re- 
gard to  free  principles  for  its  basis,  compelled  that  community 
to  look  at  the  more  grievous  wrongs  of  the  slaves,  and  created 
an  earnest  sympathy  in  their  favor.  A decent  regard  to  self- 
consistency,  in  that  unsophisticated  and  earnest  age,  could 
scarcely  fail  to  produce  some  such  effects.  The  only  just 
ground  for  regret  or  astonishment  is  that  the  spirit  of  freedom 
then  seeming  to  be  in  the  ascendant,  did  not  secure  and  main- 
tain a more  complete  and  permanent  triumph. 

It  is  instructive  to  notice  how  the  spirit  of  republican  liber- 
ty and  independence,  in  the  different  colonies,  was  found  most 
predominant  and  most  efficient,  precisely  where  there  were 


* It  may  be  doubted  by  some  whether  the  religious  sentiment  and  the  testimony 
and  action  of  religious  bodies  against  slavery  in  this  country,  had  been  sufficiently 
extensive  to  make  any  very  deep  impression  either  upon  the  public  conscience,  in 
general,  or  upon  the  minds  of  our  prominent  statesmen.  But  the  power  of  such 
influences  is  greater  than  is  commonly  understood.  True  statesmen,  and  even 
shrewd  politicians,  always  keep  themselves  informed  in  respect  to  the  religious  ten- 
dencies of  a country.  Especially  was  this  true  in  the  last  century.  There  can  be 
no  doubt  that  such  men  as  Jefferson  and  Madison  were  familiarly  acquainted  with 
all  that  theologians  in  this  country  and  Europe  had  written  concerning  slavery. 

The  letter  of  Patrick  Henry  to  Robert  Pleasants  (afterwards  President  of  the 
Virginia  Abolition  Society),  written  Jan.  18,  1773,  sufficiently  shows  that  his  mind 
had  been  deeply  affected  with  the  movements  among  the  “ Friends.” 

“Believe  me,”  says  he,  “I  shall  honor  the  Quakers  for  their  noble  efforts  to 
abolish  slavery.  It  is  a debt  that  we  owe  to  the  purity  of  our  religion  to  show  that 
it  is  at  variance  with  that  law  that  warrants  slavery.  I exhort  you  to  persevere  in 
so  worthy  a resolution.”  “ I believe  a time  will  come  when  an  opportunity  will  be 
offered  to  abolish  this  lamentable  evil.” 


SLAVERY  A YD  FREEDOM. 


71 


fewest  slaves,  and  where  the  spirit  of  opposition  to  slavery 
'was  likewise  most  efficient  and  most  predominant ; while  the 
regions  most  deeply  involved  in  the  sin  of  slaveholding  and 
least  accessible  to  the  principles  of  emancipation,  were  pre- 
cisely the  same  regions  in  which  the  apologists  and  partizans 
of  British  usurpation  were  most  numerous  and  influential — 
the  regions  in  which  the  spirit  of  opposition  to  that  usurpation 
was,  to  the  smallest  extent,  and  with  the  greatest  difficulty 
roused.  The  South  was  overrun  with  tories,  while  New  Eng- 
land was  united  in  favor  of  independence,  almost  to  a man. 
Particular  localities  at  the  North,  might  be  mentioned,  where 
the  prevalence  of  slaveholding  and  slave  trading  was  connected 
with  a corresponding  sympathy  with  despotic  government. 

It  may  be  added,  that  the  names  most  prominent  in  the 
Eevolutionary  struggle  were  also  among  the  names  most 
prominent  in  opposition  to  slavery,  and  it  is  not  known  that  a 
single  advocate  of  the  abolition  of  slavery  was  otherwise  than 
a firm  asserter  of  the  rights  of  the  Colonies. 

That  the  subsequent  decline  of  the  spirit  of  general  liberty, 
and  the  corresponding  decline  of  opposition  to  slaverv,  have 
steadily  gone  hand  in  hand,  until  the  propagandists  of  inter- 
minable slavery  have  derided  the  self-evident  truths  of  the 
Declaration  of  Independence,  and  the  people  of  the  free  States 
have  listened  with  comparative  apathy,  are  equally  undeni- 
able facts. 

A full  and  correct  history  of  the  American  Eevolution,  and 
of  the  incipient  and  successive  steps  taken  to  unite  the 
Colonies  under  a new  government,  cannot  fail  to  identify  the 
movement  with  opposition  to  slavery,  and  the  purpose  and 
anticipation  of  its  overthrow.  A few  documentary  facts,  in 
illustration,  must  suffice  here. 

The  first  general  Congress  of  the  Colonies  assembled  in 
Philadelphia,  in  September,  1774.  Preparatory  to  that  mea- 
sure, the  Convention  of  Virginia  assembled  in  August  of 
that  year,  to  appoint  delegates  to  the  general  Congress.  An 
exposition  of  the  rights  of  British  America,  by  Mr.  Jefferson. 


72 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


was  laid  before  this  Convention,  of  which  the  following  is  an 
extract : 

“The  abolition  of  domestic  slavery  is  the  greatest  object  of  desire 
in  these  Colonies,  where  it  was  unhappily  introduced  in  their  infant  state. 
But  previous  to  the  enfranchisement  of  the  slaves,  it  is  necessary  to  exclude 
further  importations  from  Africa.  Yet  our  repeated  attempts  to  effect  this 
by  prohibitions,  and  by  imposing  duties  which  might  amount  to  prohibition, 
have  been  hitherto  defeated  by  his  Majesty’s  negative;  thus  preferring  the 
immediate  advantage  of  a few  African  corsairs  to  the  lasting  interests  of  the 
American  States,  and  the  rights  of  human  nature,  deeply  wounded  by  this 
infamous  practice.” — Am.  Archives , 4th  series,  Vol.  I.,  p.  696. 


pe 

in 

k 

jn 

cer 


we 

hoi 

i 

d 


The  Virginia  Convention,  before  separating,  adopted  the 


following  resolution : 


“ Resolved,  We  will  neither  ourselves  import  nor  purchase  any  slave  or 
slaves  imported  by  any  other  person  after  the  first  day  of  November  next, 
either  from  Africa,  the  West  Indies,  or  any  other  place.” — lb.  p.  687. 


i 

tilt 


Similar  resolutions,  had  been  adopted  by  primary  meetings  j ^ 
of  the  people  in  county  meetings  throughout  Virginia,  during  „ 
the  month  of  July  preceding  the  State  Convention.  At  the  j ap 
meeting  in  Fairfax  county,  Washington  was  chairman.  ® 

North  Carolina  also  held  her  Provincial  Convention  in  s“ 
August,  of  the  same  year.  Nearly  every  county  in  the  State  j ” 
was  represented.  There  were  sixty-nine  delegates.  The  * 
following  resolution  was  adopted : 


“ Resolved , That  we  will  not  import  any  slave  or  slaves,  or  purchase  any  • 
slave  or  slaves  imported  or  brought  into  the  Province,  by  others,  from  any  11 
part  of  the  world,  after  the  first  day  of  November  next.” — lb.,  p.  735. 

FI 

Similar  resolutions  had  been  previously  adopted  in  primary  * 
meetings  of  the  citizens  in  other  Southern  provinces,  now 
States.  f: 

It  was  after  such  demonstrations  that  the  first  General  Con-  ! "* 
gress  assembled.  Their  first  and  main  work  was  the  formation 
of  the  “ Association  ” which  formed  a bond  of  Union  between 
the  Colonies.  This  was  nearly  two  years  before  the  Declaration 
of  Independence,  so  that  “ the  Union  ” of  the  future  States  was 
effected  before  their  Independence,  a fact  subversive  of  the  i f 
common  theory  of  the  Constitution,  which  supposes  inde- 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


73 


pendent  States  first,  and  a compromise  of  the  slave  question, 
in  order  to  the  effecting  of  a Union,  afterwards.  The  folio  tv- 
in  extracts  from  the  articles  of  Association  will  show  the 

O 

principles  and  the  terms,  so  far  as  the  slave  question  is  con- 
cerned, upon  -which  this  first  union  was  effected  : 

“We  do,  for  ourselves  and  the  inhabitants  of  the  several  Colonies  whom 
we  represent,  firmly  agree  and  associate  under  the  sacred  ties  of  virtue, 
honor,  and  love  of  our  country,  as  follows  : 

* * * * * * ' * 

2.  “That  we  will  neither  import  nor  purchase  any  slave  import- 
ed after  the  first  day  of  December  next ; after  which  time  we  will  wholly 
discontinue  the  slave  trade,  and  will  neither  be  concerned  in  it  ourselves, 
nor  will  we  hire  our  vessels,  nor  sell  our  commodities  or  manufactures,  to 
those  who  are  concerned  in  it.” 

* * * * * * -Ji- 

ll. “That  a committee  be  chosen  in  every  county,  city,  and  town,  by 

those  who  are  qualified  to  vote  for  Representatives  in  the  Legislature,  whose 
business  it  shall  be  attentively  to  observe  the  conduct  of  all  persons  touching 
this  Association  ; and  when  it  shall  be  made  to  appear,  to  the  satisfaction  of 
a majority  of  any  such  committee,  that  any  person  within  the  limits  of  their 
appointment  has  violated  this  Association,  that  such  majority  do  forthwith 
cause  the  truth  of  the  case  to  be  published  in  the  gazette,  to  the  end  that  all 
such  foes  to  the  rights  of  British  America  mqy  be  publicly  known,  and 
universally  contemned  as  the  enemies  of  American  liberty  ; and  thence- 
forth we  respectively  will  break  off  all  dealings  with  him  or  her.” 

*•  * * * * * * 

14  “ And  we  do  further  agree  and  resolve  that  we  will  have  no  trade, 
commerce,  dealings,  or  intercourse  whatever,  with  any  colony  or  province 
in  North  America,  which  shall  not  accede  to,  or  which  shall  hereafter 
violate  this  Association,  but  will  hold  them  as  unworthy  of  the  rights  of 
freemen,  and  as  inimical  to  the  liberties  of  this  country.” 

* * * * * * * 

“ The  foregoing  Association,  being  determined  upon  by  the  Congress, 
was  ordered  to  be  subscribed  by  the  several  members  thereof ; and  there- 
upon, we  have  hereunto  set  our  respective  names  accordingly. 

In  Congress,  Philadelphia,  October  20,  1774. 

PEYTON  RANDOLPH, 

President. 

New  Hampshire — John  Sullivan,  Nathaniel  Folsom. 

Massachusetts  Bay- — Thomas  Cushing,  Samuel  Adams,  John  Adams, 
Robert  Treat  Paine. 

Rhode  Island — Stephen  Hopkins,  Samuel  Ward. 


74 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


Connecticut — Eliphalet  Dyer,  Roger  Sherman,  Silas  Deane. 

New  York — Isaac  Low,  John  Alsop,  John  Jay,  James  Duane,  Philip 
Livingston,  William  Floyd,  Henry  Wisner,  Simon  Boerum. 

New  Jersey — James  Kinsey,  William  Livingston,  Stephen  Crane, 
Richard  Smith,  John  De  Hart. 

Pennsylvania — Joseph  Galloway,  John  Dickinson,  Charles  Humphreys, 
Thomas  Mifflin,  Edward  Biddle,  John  Morton,  George  Ross. 

The  lower  counties,  Newcastle,  &c. — Caisar  Rodney,  Thomas 
McKean,  George  Read. 

Maryland — Matthew  Tilghman,  Thomas  Johnson,  jr. , William  Paca, 
Samuel  Chase. 

Virginia — Richard  Henry  Lee,  George  Washington,  Patrick  Henry,  jr., 
Richard  Bland,  Benjamin  Harrison,  Edmund  Pendleton. 

North  Carolina — William  Hooper,  Joseph  Hewes,  Richard  Caswell. 

South  Carolina — Henry  Middleton,  Thomas  Lynch,  Christopher  Gads- 
den, John  Rutledge,  Edward  Rutledge. — American  Archives , 4th  Series, 
p.  915. 

Such  was  the  action  of  the  first  American  Congress.  These 
were  items  in  the  “ Articles  of  Association.’'  How  they  were 
received  in  the  Colonies  will  appear  from  the  following : 

We,  therefore,  the  Representatives  of  the  extensive  District  of  Darien, 
in  the  colony  of  Georgia,  having  now  assembled  in  Congress,  by  authority 
and  free  choice  of  the  inhabitants  of  said  District,  now  freed  from  their 
fetters,  do  resolve : 

“ 5.  To  show  the  world  that  we  are  not  influenced  by  any  contracted  or 
interested  motives,  but  a general  philanthropy  for  all  mankind,  of  what- 
ever climate,  language,  or  complexion,  we  hereby  declare  our  disapprobation 
and  abhorrence  of  the  unnatural  practice  of  slavery  in  America,  (however 
the  uncultivated  state  of  our  country,  or  other  specious  arguments  may 
plead  for  it,)  a practice  founded  in  injustice  and  cruelty,  and  highly  danger- 
ous to  our  liberties,  (as  well  as  lives,)  debasing  part  of  our  fellow-creatures 
below  men,  and  corrupting  the  virtue  and  morals  of  the  rest,  and  is  laying 
the  basis  of  that  liberty  we  contend  for,  (and  which  we  pray  the  Almighty 
to  continue  to  the  latest  posterity,)  upon  a very  wrong  foundation.  We, 
therefore,  Resolve,  at  all  times  to  use  our  utmost  endeavors  for  the  manu- 
mission of  our  slaves  in  this  colony,  upon  the  most  safe  and  equitable  foot- 
ing for  the  master  and  themselves.” — Jan.  12th,  1775. — Ibid.,  p.  1136. 

The  following  action  was  taken  by  the  Convention  of  Mary- 
land, held  in  November,  1774,  and  re-adopted  by  a Conven- 
tion more  fully  attended,  in  December : 

“ Resolved,  That  every  member  of  this  meeting  will,  and  every  person  in 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM.  75 

the  province  should,  strictly  and  inviolably  observe  and  carry  into  execution 
: the  Association  agreed  on  by  the  Continental  Congress.” 

The  declaration  adopted  by  a general  meeting  of  the  free- 
holders in -James  City  county,  in  Virginia,  in  November,  1774, 
is  in  these  words  : 

“ The  Association  entered  into  by  Congress  being  publicly  read,  the  free- 
holders and  other  inhabitants  of  the  county,  that  they  might  testify  to  the 
world  their  concurrence  and  hearty  approbation  of  the  measures  adopted  by 
that  respectable  body,  very  cordially  acceded  thereto,  and  did  bind  and  oblige 
themselves,  by  the  sacred  ties  of  virtue,  honor,  and  love  to  their  country, 
strictly  and  inviolably  to  observe  and  keep  the  same  in  every  particular.” 

The  proceedings  of  a town  meeting  at  Danbury,  Connec- 
ticut, Dec.  12th,  1774,  contained  the  following: 

“ It  is  with  singular  pleasure  we  notice  the  second  article  of  the  Asso- 
ciation, in  which  it  is  agreed  to  import  no  more  negro  slaves,  as  we  cannot 
but  think  it  a palpable  absurdity  so  loudly  to  complain  of  attempts  to  enslave 
us  while  we  are  actually  enslaving  others.'' — Am.  Archives , 4th  series,  Vol. 
I.,  p.  1038. 

These  are  but  “ specimens  of  the  formal  and  solemn  declarations  of 
public  bodies.”  “ The  Articles  of  Association  were  adopted  by  Colonial 
Conventions,  County  Meetings,  and  lesser  assemblages  throughout  the  coun- 
try, and  became  the  law  of  America — the  fundamental  Constitution,  so  to 
speak,  of  the  first  American  Union.”  “ The  Union  thus  constituted  was,  to 
be  sure,  imperfect,  partial,  incomplete,  but  it  was  still  a Union,  a union  of 
the  Colonies  and  of  the  people  for  the  great  objects  set  forth  in  the  articles. 
And  let  it  be  remembered,  also,  that  prominent  in  the  list  of  measures  agreed 
on  in  these  articles,  was  the  discontinuance  of  the  slave  trade,  with  a view 
to  the  ultimate  extinction  of  slavery  itself.”* 

That  this  “sentiment  pervaded  the  masses  of  the  people,” 
and  that  they  understood  themselves  as  laying  the  constitutional 
foundations  of  a permanent  union  and  general  government  by 
these  measures,  may  be  seen  by  the  following  extracts  from 
an  eloquent  paper,  entitled  “Observations  addressed  to  the 
people  of  America,”  printed  at  Philadelphia,  in  Nov.,  1774: 


* Speech  of  Hon.  S.  P.  Chase,  of  Ohio,  U.  S.  Senate,  March  26,  1850.  To  this 
speech,  and  co  that  of  Jlon.  Lewis  D.  Campbell,  of  Ohio,  in  the  House  of  Represen- 
tatives of  the  U.  S.,  Feb.  19,  1850,  we  are  indebted  for  the  quotations  made  from  the 
American  Archives. 


7G 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


“ The  least  deviation  from  the  resolves  of  Congress  will  be  treason  ; 
such  treason  as  few  villains  have  ever  had  an  opportunity  of  committing. 
It  will  be  treason  against  the  present  inhabitants  of  the  colonies — against 
the  millions  of  unborn  generations  who  are  to  exist  hereafter  in  America — 
against  the  only  liberty  and  happiness  which  remain  to  mankind — against 
the  last  hopes  of  the  wretched  in  every  corner  of  the  world  ; in  a word,  it 
will  be  treason  against  God.  * * * We  are  now  laying  the  foun- 

dations of  an  American  Constitution.  Let  us,  therefore,  hold  up 
everything  we  do  to  the  eye  of  posterity.  They  will  most  probably  mea- 
sure their  liberties  and  happiness  by  the  most  careless  of  our  footsteps. 
Let  no  unhallowed  hand  touch  the  precious  seed  of  liberty.  Let  us  form 
the  glorious  tree  in  such  a manner,  and  impregnate  it  with  such  principles 
of  life,  that  it  shall  last  forever.  * * * j almost  wish  to  live  to  hear 

the  triumphs  of  the  jubilee  in  the  year  1874  ; to  see  the  models,  pictures, 
fragments  of  writings,  that  shall  be  displayed  to  revive  the  memory  of  the 
proceedings  of  the  Congress  of  1774.  If  any  adventitious  circumstance 
shall  give  precedency  on  that  day,  it  shall  be  to  inherit  the  blood,  or  even 
to  possess  the  name,  of  a member  of  that  glorious  assembly.” — Amer. 
Arch.,  4 ser.,  vol.  i,  p.  976. 

The  spirit  of  1774  was  not  extinct  or  languishing  in  1776, 
a year  memorable  not  onlyffior  the  Declaration  of  American 
Independence,  but  for  the  previous  enunciation  of  the  same 
self-evident  truths,  applied  to  the  sin  of  slavery,  in  a more 
elaborate  and  thorough  elucidation  of  the  whole  subject  than 
had  before  appeared.*  The  argument  of  Dr.  Hopkins  against 
slavery  is  introduced  by  a notice  of  the  action  of  Congress 
against  the  slave  trade,  and  the  statement  that  the  traffic  “ has 
now  but  few  advocates,  and  is  generally  exploded  and  con- 
demned.” The  treatise  contains  the  remarkable  statement 
that  “ the  slavery  that  now  takes  place,”  (in  distinction  from 
that  of  ancient  times,)  is  “ without  the  express  sanction  of  civil 
government .”f  This  idea  will  now  appear  strange  to  most  per- 

* “ A Dialogue  concerning  the  Slavery  of  the  Africans,  showing  it  to  be  the  duty 
and  interest  of  the  American  States  to  emancipate  all  their  African  Slaves.  Dedi- 
cated to  the  Honorable  the  Continental  Congress.”  By  Samuel  Hopkins,  D.D.,  of 
Newport,  R.  I. 

t The  same  idea  seems  involved  in  another  portion  of  the  treatise.  “ The 
several  legislatures  in  these  colonies,”  says  the  writer,  “ the  magistrates  and  the 
body  of  the  people,  have  doubtless  been  greatly  guilty  in  approving  and  encour- 
aging, or  at  least  conniving  at,  this  practice”  ( i . e.,  slaveholding). 

This  is  certainly  remarkable  language,  especially  from  so  accurate  and  discrimin- 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


77 


sons.  But  the  careful  .and  reflecting  reader  of  the  history  we 
have  given  in  the  preceding  chapters,  will  have  been  led  to 
inquire  when  and  how  the  “ express  sanction,”  of  “ civil  gov- 
ernment ” had  been  given  to  slavery  in  any  form  that  could 
entitle  it  to  the  reputation  of  being  legalized.  The  decision 
of  Lord  Mansfield  in  the  Somerset  case,  four  years  previous, 
may  have  been  in  the  mind  of  Hopkins,  and  he  is  known  to 
have  been  in  correspondence  with  Granville  Sharp,  with 
whose  views  the  reader  is  acquainted.  What  seems  most  re- 
markable is,  that  a treatise  containing  such  a statement  should 
not  only  have  been  extensively  circulated  without  being 
questioned,  but  republished,  and  still  more  extensively  circu- 
lated, nine  years  afterwards,  by  anti-slavery  societies  under 
the  auspices  of  such  statesmen  as  Franklin  and  Jay.  If  it  be 
conceded  that  American  slavery  was  “without  the  express 
sanction  of  civil  government,”  that  it  was  not,  in  a strict  and 
proper  sense,  legalized,  at  the  time  when  Hopkins  wrote  his 
treatise,  a few  months  before  the  Declaration  of  Independence, 
it  would  be  a curious  question  how  it  could  have  become 
legalized  since.  Assuredly,  the  far-famed  Declaration  of  in- 
alienable human  rights  cannot  have  given  it  any  new  validity  l 

“ We  hold  these  truths  to  be  self-evident,  that  all  rxlen  are  created  equal ; 
that  they  are  endowed  by  their  Creator  with  certain  inalienable  rights, 
among  which  are  life,  liberty,  and  the  pursuit  of  happiness.”  To  secure 
these  rights,  governments  are  instituted  among  men.”  “ We,  therefore, 
the  representatives  of  the  United  States  of  America,”  &e.  &c. 

We  enter  into  no  argument  here  concerning  the  legal  effect 
of  that  immortal  Declaration,  upon  the  tenure  of  slave  proper- 
ty. But  it  is  important  to  note  down  distinctly  the  historical 
facts.  It  was  the  “ unanimous  Declaration  of  the  thirteen 
United  (not  disunited)  States  of  America.”  The  “Union” 
had  already  been  formed,  and  has  never  since  been  dissolved. 


ative  a writer  as  Hopkins,  if  slavery  were  universally  and  unhesitatingly  held  to  be 
legal.  Legislatures  and  magistrates  are  not  commonly  spoken  of  as  “ conniving ” 
(closing  their  eyes  upon)  practices  which  are  admitted  to  be  legal ! Such  language 
describes  their  culpable  neglect  to  suppress  and  punish  practices  that  are  unlawful. 


78 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


On  this  point,  there  can  be  no  mistake.*  It  was  not  only  a 
Declaration  of  tine  States  by  their  delegates,  but  was  separately 
ratified  by  all  the  States,  afterwards,  and  has  never  been  re- 
pudiated or  repealed  since.  In  connection  with  the  previous 
Articles  of  Association,  it  was  the  only  constitution  of  the 
United  States,  until  the-  adoption  of  the  “ Articles  of  Confeder- 
ation” in  1778  ; and  with  these,  thenceforward,  until  the  adop- 
tion of  the  present  Federal  Constitution,  in  1789.  It  had 
power  to  legalize  Acts  of  Congress  and  Treaties,  as  also  to 
absolve  citizens  from  their  allegiance  to  the  king  of  Great 
Britain.f  Its  repeal  would  have  been  an  abandonment  of  In- 
dependence, and  a return  to  the  condition  of  colonies. 

Besides  this,  the  original  thirteen  States,  except  Connecti- 
cut and  Rhode  Island,  formed  Constitutions  bearing  date, 
variously,  from  1776  to  1783.  “ They  generally  recognized, 

in  some  form  or  other,  the  natural  rights  of  men,  as  one  of  the 
fundamental  principles  of  the  government.  Several  of  them 
asserted  these  rights  in  the  most  emphatic  and  authoritative 
manner.”  So  that  the  fundamental  principles  and  self-evident 
truths  of  the  Declaration  of  1776  became  the  constitutional 
law.  of  the  several  States.  Vide  Spooner , p.  46. 

The  Articles  of  Confederation,  formed  in  1778,  contained 
no  recognition  of  slavery,  nor  of  distinctions  of  color.  It  was 
never  pretended  that,  under  these  articles,  the  slaveholder 
whose  slaves  had  escaped  to  another  State,  had  any  legal 
power  to  force  him  back. 

In  1779  the  Continental  Congress  ordered  a pamphlet  to  be 
published,  entitled,  “ Observations  on  the  American  Revolu- 
tion,” of  which  the  following  is  an  extract : 

“ The  great  principle  (of  government)  is  and  ever  will  remain  in  force, 


* The  reader  is  referred  to  the  unanswered  and  unanswerable  argument  of  John 
Quincy  Adams  on  this  point,  in  his  address  at  Newburyport,  4th  of  July,  1837. 

t John  Hancock,  President  of  Congress,  in  a letter  to  the  Convention  of  New 
Jersey,  then  in  session,  and  inclosing  a copy  of  the  Declaration  of  Independence, 
speaks  of  it  as  being  “ the  ground  and  foundation  of  a future  government.'"  If  the 
“ ground  and  foundation”  be  removed,  what  becomes  of  the  superstructure  ? But 
if  this  “ground  and  foundation”  remains,  what  becomes  of  the  validity  of  slave 
laws? 


SLAYEET  AXD  FREEDOM. 


79 


! that  men  are,  by  nature,  free ; as  accountable  to  Him  that  made  them,  they 
must  be  so  ; and  so  long  as  we  have  any  idea  of  divine  justice,  we  must 
associate  that  of  human  freedom.  Whether  men  can  part  with  their 
‘ liberty,  is  among  the  questions  which  have  exercised  the  ablest  writers ; 
but  it  is  conceded,  on  all  hands,  that  the  right  to  be  free  can  never  be 
alienated  ; still  less  is  it  practicable  for  one  generation  to  mortgage  the 
privileges  of  another.'" 

A more  forcible  denial  of  the  possibility  of  legalizing  slavery 
could  not  easily  have  been  penned. 

About  this  time,  or  not  long  after,  Mr.  Jefferson  wrote  his 
celebrated  Notes  on  Virginia,  in  which  his  testimonies  against 
slavery  are  so  various  and  emphatic,  that-  we  hesitate  what 
paragraph  to  select  for  quotation.  The  following  serves  to 
show  what  such  men,  at  that  time,  expected  and  desired  to 
see  accomplished,  and  what  was  then,  in  Mr.  Jefferson’s 
opinion,  the  state  of  sentiment  in  the  Southern  States. 

“ I think  a change  is  already  perceptible  since  the  origin  of  the  present 
revolution.  The  spirit  of  the  master  is  abating,- that  of  the  slave  is  rising 
from  the  dust,  his  condition  mollifying,  the  way,  I hope,  preparing,  under 

THE  AUSPICES  OF  HEAVEN,  FOR  A TOTAL  EMANCIPATION.” 

General  Gates,  the  conqueror  of  Burgoyne,  emancipated,  in 
1780,  his  numerous  slaves. 

From  the  beginning  to  the  close  of  the  war,  one  uniform 
language  was  held.  Soon  after  the  peace  of  1783,  Con- 
gress issued  an  address  to  the  States,  drawn  up  by  Mr.  Madi- 
son, a main  object  of  which  was  to  ask  the  provision  of  funds 
to  discharge  the  public  engagements.  The  plea  is  thus  urged : 

“ Let  it  be  remembered,  finally,  that  it  has  ever  been  the  pride  and  boast 
of  America  that  the  rights  for  which  she  contended  were  the  rights  of 
human  nature.  By  the  blessing  of  the  Author  of  these  rights  on  the  means 
exerted  for  their  defence,  they  have  prevailed  against  all  opposition,  and 
form  the  basis  of  thirteen  independent  States.” 

The  expression  of  similar  sentiments  did  not  then  cease, 
nor  were  they  confined  to  public  acts. 

“Jefferson,  Pendleton,  Mason,  Wythe,  and  Lee,  while  acting  as  a com- 
mittee of  the  House  of  Delegates  of  Virginia,  to  revise  the  State  Laws, 
prepared  a plan  for  the  gradual  emancipation  of  the  slaves,  by  law.” 

In  addition  to  these,  “ Grayson,  St.  George  Tucker,  Madison,  Blair,  Page, 
Parker,  Edmund  Randolph,  Iredell,  Spaight,  Ramsey,  McHenry,  Samuel 


80 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


Chase,  and  nearly  all  the  illustrious  names  south  of  the  Potomac,  proclaimed 
it  before  the  sun,  that  the  days  of  slavery  were  beginning-  to  be  num- 
bered/’— Power  of  Congress  over  the  “ District  of  Columbia, ” by  T.  D. 
Weld. 

Bat  it  is  needless  to  multiply  these  references.  So  universal 
were  these  sentiments,  that  Mr.  Leigh,  in  the  Convention 
of  Virginia,  in  1832,  took  occasion  t.o  say  : 

“ I thought,  till  very  lately,  that  it  was  known  to  every  body  that,  during 
the  Revolution,  and  for  many  years  after,  the  abolition  of  slavery  was  a 
favorite  topic  with  many  of  our  ablest  statesmen,  who  entertained  with  re- 
spect all  the  schemes  which  wisdom  or  ingenuity  could  suggest  for  its 
accomplishment.” 

Mr.  Faulkner,  in  the  same  Convention,  alluded  to  the  same 
fact,  as  did  also  Gov.  Barbour,  of  Virginia,  in  the  United 
States’  Senate,  in  1820. 

These  professions  of  the  fathers  of  our  republic  were  not 
totally  unaccompanied  with  corresponding  action. 

The  articles  of  Association,  including  the  solemn  pledge  to 
discontinue  the  slave  trade,  appear  to  have  been  generally 
respected  and  observed.  That  there  were  unprincipled  men 
who  evaded  or  transgressed  them,  as  there  were  other  traitors 
to  the  cause  of  liberty,  there  can  be  no  doubt.  After  the  close 
of  the  war,  this  is  known  to  have  been  the  fact.  But  the 
States  took  early  measures  for  its  suppression. 

“ The  first  opportunity  was  taken,  after  the  Declaration  of  Independence, 
to  extinguish  the  detestable  commerce  so  long  forced  upon  the  province 
(Virginia).  In  October,  1778,  during  the  tumult  and  anxiety  of  the  Revolu- 
tion, the  General  Assembly  passed  a law,  prohibiting,  tinder  heavy  penalties, 
the  further  importation  of  slaves,  and  declaring  that  every  slave  imported 
thereafter,  should  be  immediately  set  free.”  “ The  example  of  Virginia 
was  followed,  at  different  times,  before  the  date  of  the  Federal  Constitution, 
by  most  of  the  other  States.” — Walsh's  “ Appeal" — Vide  “ Friend  of 
Man,"  June  21,  1837.  Copied  from  “ Human  Rights." 

“ We  are  not  aware  that  any  State  allowed  the  importation  of  slaves  at 
the  time,”  when  the  Constitution  was  adopted.  “ The  first  State  that  re- 
newed the  traffic,  so  far  as  we  know,  was  S.  Carolina.”  in  1803. — “ Human 
Rights" — •“  F.  of  Man,"  as  above. 

Under  what  influences,  and  with  what  activity,  the  slave 
trade  was  resumed,  from  1803  to  1808,  will  be  shown  in  the 
proper  place. 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


81 


1 


1 

a 


CHAPTER  IX. 


s ERA  OF  FORMING  THE  FEDERAL  CONSTITUTION. 

->  Prevailing  Sentiment — "Washington — Luther  Martyn — William  Pinckney — North- 

Western  Territory — Ordinance  of  1787 — Madison — “ Understandings” — Wilson — 

* 1 Heath — Johnson — Randolph' — Patrick  Henry — Iredell — “ The  Federalist,”  by  Jay, 

Madison,  and  Hamilton — Ratifications — Rhode  Island — New  York — Virginia — 

■ l North  Carolina — Amendment — “ Due  process  of  law.” 

• 

From  the  close  of  the  Revolutionary  war  in  1783,  to  the 
sitting  of  the  Constitutional  Convention,  was  a space  of  only 
four  years.  Thence,  two  more  years  bring  us  to  the  adoption 
’ of  the  Constitution,  in  1789.  What  was  the  prevailing  senti- 
ment of  that  period  ? 

In  a letter  to  Robert  Morris,  dated  Mount  Vernon,  April  12,  1786,  George 
Washington  said: 

“ I can  only  say  that  there  is  not  a man  living  who  wishes  more  sincerely 
than  I do  to  see  a plan  adopted  for  the  abolition  of  it,  (slavery  ;)  but  there  is 
: only  one  proper  and  effectual  mode  in  which  it  can  be  accomplished,  and 

• that  is  by  legislative  authority  ; and  this,  so  far  as  my  suffrage  will  go,  shall 
never  be  wanting.” — 9 Sparks's  Washington , 158. 

In  a letter  to  John  F.  Mercer,  September  9,  1786,  he  reiterated  this 
- sentiment : 

“ I never  mean,  unless  some  particular  circumstances  should  compel  me  to 
lit,  to  possess  another  slave  by  purchase,  it  being  among  my  first  wishes  to 
see  some  plan  adopted,  by  which  slavery  in  this  country  may  be  abolished 
: by  law.” — Ibid. 

And  in  a letter  to  Sir  John  Sinclair,  he  further  said  : 

“ There  are  in  Pennsylvania  laws  for  the  gradual  abolition  of  slavery, 
which  neither  Virginia  nor  Maryland  have  at  present,  but  which  nothing  is 
. nore  certain  than  they  must  have,  and  at  a period  not  remote." 

■ By  his  last  will  and  testament  he  made  all  his  slaves  free. 

6 


82 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


The  testimonies  of  Franklin,  Rush,  and  Jay,  in  strong  op- 
position to  slavery,  have  been  cited  in  another  connection.* 

We  have  now  traced  the  history  of  the  “ peculiar  institu- 
tion ” down  to  the  time  when  the  Federal  Constitution  was 
about  to  be  formed.  Exceedingly  “peculiar”  indeed,  are  the 
vouchers  for  its  authenticity  and  legality  down  to  that  point 
in  our  national  history.  What  occurred  while  the  Federal 
Constitution  was  in  process  of  forming,  is  the  next  historical 
fact  to  be  inquired  after.  What  was  likely  to  have  occurred, 
and  even,  indeed,  what  could  have  occurred,  may  well  nigh  be 
read  in  the  mere  light  of  the  historical  facts  already  noticed. 
Those  facts,  at  least,  should  not  be  left  out  of  the  account,  in 
any  attempts  at  a historical  exposition  of  the  Constitution,  if, 
indeed,  the  advocates  of  the  “institution”  adventure  into 
the  field  of  history  at  all,  in  defence  of  their  claims.  The 
simple  history,  aYid  not  the  argument,  must  occupy,  at  present, 
our  attention,  and  }ret  it  is  in  the  light  of  the  pending  contro- 
versy that  we  should  ponder  the  facts.  It  is  that  contest  that 
gives  them  their  value,  and  they  should  be  collected,  arranged  ] 
and  studied  with  a view  to  the  points  to  be  illustrated  and  : 
determined  by  them. 

Luther  Martin,  of  Maryland,  advocated  the  abolition  of  ’ 
slavery,  in  the  Federal  Convention  of  1787,  and  in  his  Report  . 
of  the  proceedings  of  that  Convention  to  the  Legislature  of 
his  own  State. 

William  Pinckney,  of  Maryland,  in  the  House  of  Delegates 
in  that  State,  in  1789,  urged,  strongly,  the  abolition  of  slavery. 
We  will  give  but  a specimen  of  his  language  on  that  occasion.  : 

“ Sir — Iniquitous  and  most  dishonorable  to  Maryland,  is  that  dreary  tl 
system  of  partial  bondage  which  her  laws  have  hitherto  supported  with  a St 
solicitude  worthy  of  a better  object,  and  her  citizens  by  their  practice,  tli 
countenanced.  Founded  in  a disgraceful  traffic,  to  which  the  parent 
country  lent  its  fostering  aid,  from  motives  of  interest,  but  which  even  she 
would  have  disdained  to  encourage,  had  England  been  the  destined  mart  of  i J 
such  inhuman  merchandize,  its  continuance  is  as  shameful  as  its  origin/’ 

re 


Chapter  IV. 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


88 


NORTH-WESTERN  TERRITORY — ORDINANCE  OF  1787. 

While  the  Convention  for  drafting  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States  was  in  session,  in  1787,  the  Old  Congress  passed 
: an  ordinance  abolishing  slavery  in  the  North-Western  Terri- 
tory, and  precluding  its  future  introduction  there.  The  first 
Congress  under  the  new  Constitution  ratified  this  ordinance, 
by  a special  act.  It  received  the  approval  of  Washington, 

: who  was  then  fresh  from  the  discussions  of  the  Convention 
l for  drafting  the  Federal  Constitution.  The  measure  originated 
. with  Jefferson,  and  its  ratification  in  the  new  Congress  received 
: the  vote  of  every  member  except  Mr.  Yates,  of  New  York, 

: the  entire  Southern  delegation  voting  for  its  adoption.  By  this 
: ordinance  slavery  was  excluded  from  Ohio,  Indiana,  Illinois, 

' Michigan,  Wisconsin,  and  Iowa. 

The  series  of  articles  is  preceded  by  this  preamble  : 

“And  for  extending  the  fundamental  principles  of  civil  and  religious 

- liberty,  which  form  the  basis  whereon  these  republics,  their  laws  and  con- 
; stitutions,  are  erected ; to  fix  and  establish  those  principles  as  the  basis  of 

all  laws,  constitutions,  and  governments,  which  forever  hereafter  shall  be 
: formed  in  said  Territory  ; to  provide  also  for  the  establishment  of  States, 
and  permanent  government  therein,  and  for  their  admission  to  a share  in 
the  Federal  Councils  at  as  early  a period  as  may  be  consistent  with  the 
■ general  interest : — Be  it  ordained  and  established,”  &c.  &c. 

Then  follow  the  articles.  The  sixth  is  as  follows  : 

- 

“ There  shall  be  neither  slavery  nor  involuntary  servitude,  otherwise  than 
in  the  punishment  of  crimes,  whereof  the  party  shall  have  been  duly  con- 
victed ; provided,  always,  that  any  person  escaping  into  the  same,  from 
' whom  labor  or  service  may  be  lawfully  claimed,  in  any  one  of  the  original 
. States,  such  fugitive  may  be  lawfully  reclaimed,  and  conveyed  to  the  person 
claiming  his  or  her  labor  or  service,  as  aforesaid.” 

“The  Constitution,”  it  is  claimed,  “guaranties  slavery.” 
And  “the  compromises  of  the  Constitution”  are  very  gene- 
rally conceded,  even  among  those  who  disrelish  and  contro- 
vert the  claim.  We  enter  not  now  into  matters  of  mere 
opinion.  But  the  continuity  and  fidelity  of  the  history  we 
have  attempted,  compel  us  to  attend  to  the  facts. 

‘ 

1 


84 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


Whatever  those  facts  are,  they  are  such  as  are  interlinked, 
indissolubly,  with  the  historical  facts  of  the  last  previous 
chapter,  and  the  preceding  ones.  History  must  be  understood, 
if  at  all,  in  its  connections. . 

The  Constitution  is  in  the  hands  of  the  people.  We  need 
not  copy  here  its  provisions.  Ho  claimant  of  the  Constitu- 
tional guaranties  of  slavery  adventures  to  rest  the  claim  on 
the  mere  words  of  that  instrument.  He  well  knows  that 
neither  the  terms  “slave”  nor  “slavery”  are  to  be  found 
there.  He  goes  out  of  the  instrument  for  its  exposition,  and 
reposes  on  supposed  facts  1 in  the  shape  of  “ understandings  ” 
then  entertained.  What  were  the  “understandings”  of  that 
period?  In  the  preceding  chapter  may  be  seen  some  of  them. 
It  is  in  place  here  to  record  more.  We  have  seen  what  they 
were,  irp  to  the  time  of  the  framing  and  adopting  of  the  Fed- 
eral Constitution.  What  were  they,  then  ? 

In  the  Convention  that  drafted  the  Constitution — 

Mr.  Madison  declared,  he  “ thought  it  wrong  to  admit  in  the  Constitution 
the  idea  that  there  could  be  property  in  men.” — 3 Mad.  Pap.,  1429.* 

“ On  motion  of  Mr.  Randolph,  the  word  1 servitude’  was  struck  out,  and 
‘ service’  unanimously  inserted — the  former  being  thought  to  express  the 
condition  of  slaves,  and  the  latter  the  obligation  of  free  persons.” — lb.  3, 
p.  1569. 

Such  were  the  “ understandings  ” of  the  Convention  that 
drafted  the  Constitution.  And  with  what  “understanding” 
was  it  adopted  by  the  people,  in  their  State  Conventions  ? 
Let  us  see. 

James  Wilson,  of  Pennsylvania,  had  been  a leading  member  of  the  Con- 
vention, and  in  the  Ratification  Convention  of  his  State,  when  speaking  of 
the  clause  relating  to  the  power  of  Congress  over  the  slave  trade  after 
twenty  years,  he  said  : 

“ I consider  this  clause  as  laying  the  foundation  for  banishing  slavery  out 
of  this  country ; and  though  the  period  is  more  distant  than  I could  wish  it, 
it  will  produce  the  same  kind,  gradual  change  as  was  produced  in  Pennsyl- 


* In  other  words,  Mr.  Madison  would  not  consent  that  the  Constitution  should 
recognize  even  the  legality  of  slavery  ! This  was  a still  more  full,  confident,  and 
emphatic  expression  of  the  idea  we  have  before  quoted  from  Ur.  Hopkins. 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


85 


vania.  * * * The  new  States  which  are  to  be  formed  will  be  under  the 

control  of  Congress  in  this  particular,  and  slavery  will  never  be  introduced 
amongthein.” — 2 Elliot's  Debates,  452. 

In  another  place,  speaking  of  this  clause,  he  said  : 

“ It  presents  us  with  the  pleasing  prospect  that  the  rights  of  mankind 
will  be  acknowledged  and  established  throughout  the  Union.  If  there  was 
no  other  feature  in  the  Constitution  but  this  one,  it  would  diffuse  a beauty 
over  its  whole  countenance.  Yet  the  labor  of  a few  years,  and  Congress 
will  have  power  to  exterminate  slavery  from  within  our  borders.” — 7b.  2, 
p.  484. 

In  the  Ratification  Convention  of  Massachusetts,  Gen.  Heath  said : 

“The  migration  or  importation,  &c.,  is  confined  to  the  States  now  exist- 
ing only  ; new  States  cannot  claim  it.  Congress  by  their  ordinance  for 
creating  new  States  some  time  since,  declared  that  the  new  States  shall  be 
republican,  and  that  there  shall  be  no  slavery  in  them.” — lb.  2,  p.  115. 

Nor  were  these  views  and  anticipations  confined  to  the  free  States.  In 
the  Ratification  Convention  of  Virginia,  Mr.  Johnson  said  : 

“ They  tell  us  that  they  see  a progressive  danger  of  bringing  about  eman- 
cipation. The  principle  has  begua  since  the  Revolution.  Let  us  do  what  we 
will,  it  will  come  round.  Slavery  has  been  the  foundation  of  much  of  that 
impiety  and  dissipation  which  have  been  so  much  disseminated  among  our 
countrymen.  If  it  were  totally  abolished,  it  would  do  much  good,” — lb.  3, 
pp.  6 — 48. 

Gov.  Randolph  rebuked  those  who  expressed  apprehensions  that  its  influ- 
ence might  be  exerted  on  the  side  of  freedom,  by  saying : 

“ I hope  that  there  are  none  here  who,  considering  the  subject  in  the  calm 
light  of  philosophy,1  will  advance  an  objection  dishonorable  to  Virginia,  that, 
at  the  moment  they  are  securing  the  rights  of  their  citizens,  there  is  a spark 
of  hope  that  those  unfortunate  men  now  held  in  bondage  may,  by  the 
operation  of  the  General  Government,  be  made  free.” — lb.  3,  p.  598. 

Patrick  Henry,  in  the  same  Convention,  argued  “ the  power 
of  Congress,  under  the  United  States'  Constitution , to  abolish  slavery 
in  the  States ,”  and  added  : 

“ Another  thing  will  contribute  to  bring  this  event  about.  Slavery  is 
detested.  We  feel  its  effects.  We  deplore  it  with  all  the  pity  of  human- 
ity.”—^Debates  Va.  Convention , p.  463. 

“ In  the  debates  of  the  North  Carolina  Convention,  Mr.  Iredell,  after- 
wards a Judge  of  the  United  States  Supreme  Court,  said — ‘ When  the  entire 
abolition  of  slavery  takes  place,  it  will  be  an  event  which  must  be  pleasing 
to  every  generous  mind,  and  every  friend  of  human  nature.’  ” — “ Power  of 
Congress,"  &c.,pp.  31-2. 


86 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


Such  are  a few  specimens  of  the  expressed  “understand- 
ings” with  which  the  people  adopted  the  Constitution. 

Another  class  of  historical  facts,  of  the  utmost  importance 
to  a right  understanding  of  the  slave  question  in  America, 
relates  to  the  expositions  and  arguments  addressed  to  the 
people  of  the  United  States  to  persuade  them  to  adopt  the 
Federal  Constitution.  It  is  well  known  that  the  people  were 
sensitively  jealous  of  their  rights  at  that  period,  and  fearful 
of  the  encroachments  of  despotic  power.  A strong  party, 
of  which  Mr.  Jefferson  (a  prominent  and  zealous  propagandist 
of  abolitionism)  was  understood  to  be  the  nucleus,  and  after- 
wards became  the  successful  presidential  candidate,  opposed 
the  adoption  of  the  Federal  Constitution,  as  prepared  by  the 
Convention,  on  the  ground  of  its  alleged  defects  in  not  pro- 
viding sufficient  securities  for  personal  rights,  and  a more  ample 
and  explicit  enunciation  of  the  self-evident  truths  of  the 
Declaration  of  1776.  This  opposition  drew  out  the  distin- 
guished statesmen,  Madison,  Jay,  and  Hamilton,  in  a joint 
and  elaborate  defence  of  the  Constitution  as  drafted,  compri- 
sing a series  of  papers  known  as  “ The  Federalist,”  and  since 
collected  into  a large  volume.  These  papers  were  extensively 
circulated  before  the  action  of  the  States,  and  were  largely 
instrumental  in  securing  their  desired  object. — Ho.  39  of  “ The 
Federalist,”  by  James  Madison,  contains  the  following: 

The  first  question  that  offers  itself  is,  whether  the  general  form  and 
aspect  of  the  government  be  strictly  republican.  It  is  evident  that  no  other 
form  would  be  reconcilable  with  the  genius  of  the  people  of  America,  and 
with  the  fundamental  principles  of  the  Revolution , or  with  that  honorable 
determination  which  animates  every  votary  of  freedom , to  rest  all  our  polit- 
ical experiments  on  the  capacity  of  mankind  for  self-government.  If  the 
plan  of  the  Convention,  therefore,  be  found  to  depart  from  the  republican 
character,  its  advocates  must  abandon  it,  as  no  longer  defensible.” 

Mr.  Madison  proceeds,  at  some  length,  to  discuss  the  ques- 
tion, “What  are  the  distinctive  characters  of  the  republican 
form  ” ? After  distinctly  repudiating  the  aristocracies  and 
oligarchies  of  Holland,  Venice,  Poland,  and  England,  as  not 
being  republican,  though  sometimes  “dignified,”  very  impro- 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


87 


perly,  “with  the  appellation,”  Mr.  Madison  proceeds  further 
to  define  a republican  government  as  one  whose  officers  are 
appointed  by  THE  people,  &c.  “ It  is  essential  to  such  a gov- 

ernment,” says  he,  “ that  it  be  derived  from  the  great  body  of 
society , not  from  an  inconsiderable  portion,  OR,  a favored  class 
of  it.”  And  this  is  the  same  Mr.  Madison,  who,  in  the  Con- 
vention for  drafting  the  Constitution  which  he.  was  now  re- 
commending, had  insisted  that  the  instrument  must  not  recog- 
nize the  legality  of  slavery. 

The  adoption  of  the  Federal  Constitution  was  thus  success- 
fully urged  upon  the  people,  by  representing  it  as  laying  the 
foundation  of  the  Government  upon  “ the  principles  of  the 
Revolution” — the  principles  of  ’76, — the  principles  promul- 
gated so  effectively  by  Mr.  Jefferson,  who  had  said — 

“ The  true  foundation  of  republican  government  is  the  equal  rights  of 
every  citizen,  in  his  person  and  property,  and  in  their  management,” 
and  who  had  explicitly  designated  the  slaves  as  “citizens.”* 

In  Xo.  81  of  “ The  Federalist”  several  pages  are  devoted 
to  a consideration  of  what  was  evidently  understood  to  be  a 
vital  point,  in  jhe  minds  of  the  people,  who  were  so  soon  to 
decide  on  the  adoption  or  rejection  of  the  proposed  Con- 
stitution. 

“The  most  considerable  of  the  remaining  objections,”  says 
the  writer,  “is,  that  the  plan  of  the  Convention  contains  no  bill 
of  rights .” 

The  writer  speaks  of  “the  intemperate partizans  of  a bill  of 
rights,”  and  of  their  “ zeal  in  this  matter.”  This  shows  that 
many  of  the  people  were  sensitive  on  this  point,  and  that  the 
friends  of  the  proposed  Constitution  were  afraid  of  its  being 
rejected  in  consequence. 

And  how  did  “The  Federalist”  successfully  allay  this 
jealousy,  and  persuade  the  people  to  adopt  the  proposed  Con- 
stitution ? 


"With  what  execration  should  the  statesman  be  loaded,  who,  permitting  one  half 
of  the  citizens  thus  to  trample  upon  the  rights  of  the  other , transforms  those  into 
despots,  and  these  into  enemies,  destroys  the  morals  of  the  one  part,  and  the  amor 
I patrice  of  the  other.” — Notes  on  Virginia. 


88 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


It  was  done,  first , bj  citing  a number  of  specific  provisions 
in  the  Constitution,  equivalent,  (as  was  claimed)  to  so  many 
corresponding  items  in  a bill  of  rights;  and,  second , by  citing 
the  Preamble  to  the  Constitution,  setting  forth  its  objects 
“ to  secure  the  blessings  of  liberty &c.  to  “ the  people  of  the 
United  States.”  This  Preamble,  as  being  a part  of  the  Con- 
stitution, and  its  very  basis,  to  which  all  the  rest  was  con- 
formed, was  represented  as  being  not  only  a bill  of  rights  in 
the  general,  but  “ a better  recognition  of  popular  rights  ” than 
could  otherwise  have  been  framed,  and  less  liable  to  be  set 
aside,  under  a “plausible  pretence,”  by  men  “disposed  to 
usurp  power.”* 

The  objectors  had  desired  such  a bill  of  rights  as  several  of 
the  States,  particularly  Massachusetts,  had  already  adopted, 
and  under  which,  before  that  tune,  the  Courts  of  Massachusetts 
had  decided  slavery  to  be  illegal.  Yet  “ The  Federalist”  as-  : 
sured  them  that  the  Constitution  was  more  than  the  equivalent  1 
of  such  bills  of  rights. 

It  was  under  the  pressure  of  expositions  and  arguments 
like  these,  from  leading  members  of  the  Convention,  that  the 
people  were  persuaded  to  ratify  the  Constitution  that  had  been 
elaborated  with  closed  doors.  They  ratified  it  with  “the 
understanding,”  so  frequently  expressed  by  and  among  them, 
that  the  Constitution  was  in  favor  of  freedom.  We  know  of 
no  record  in  which  the  ratification  of  that  instrument  was 
urged,  either  at  the  North  or  at  the  South,  on  the  ground  that 
it  was  the  guaranty  of  any  form  of  despotism — or  on  the 
ground  that  the  conflicting  interests  of  liberty  and  slavery 
had  been  compromised.  The  whole  current  of  the  political 
literature  of  that  period  forbids  the  idea  that  any  such  ajtpeals 
could  have  been  adventured. . 

But  the  peojDle,  though  they  ratified  the  Constitution,  were 


* The  reader  is  doubtless  familiar  with  the  modern  pleas,  that  the  Preamble  has 
no  controlling  power  over  the  Constitution;  that  it  does  not  furnish  a criterion  for 
Constitutional  exposition  ; and  that,  in  fact,  it  is  no  part  of  the  Constitution ! We 
may  judge  what  would  have  been  the  fate  of  the  proposed  Constitution,  if  its  friends 
had  outstript  its  enemies  in  representing  it  thus  ! 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


89 


not-  satisfied  to  do  so  without  insisting  upon  important  amend- 
ments. The  Conventions  of  Virginia,  North  Carolina  and 
Rhode  Island,  proposed  a provision  as  follows : 

“ No  freeman  ought  to  be  taken,  imprisoned,  or  disseized  of  his  free- 
hold, liberties,  privileges,  or  franchises,  or  outlawed,  or  exiled,  or  in  any 
manner  despoiled  or  deprived  of  his  life,  liberty,  or  property,  but  bv  the 
law  of  the  land.” — Elliot's  Debates , 658. 

New  York  proposed  a different  provision  : 

“ No  person  ought  to  be  taken,  imprisoned,  or  disseized  of  his  freehold, 
or  be  exiled,  or  deprived  of  his  privileges,  franchises,  life,  liberty,  or  pro- 
perty, but  by  due  process  of  law.” — 1 Ibid,  328. 

These  various  propositions  came  before  Congress,  and  that  body,  at  its 
first  session,  agreed  upon  Several  "amendments  to  the  Constitution,  which 
were  subsequently  ratified  by  the  States.  That  which  related  to  personal 
liberty  was  expressed  in  these-  comprehensive  words  : 

“ No  person  * * * * shall  be  deprived  of  life,  liberty,  or  property, 

without  due  process  of  law.” — Cons.,  Amend.,  Art.  5. 

It  is  to  be  noted,  as  an  important  historical  fact,  that  this 
remarkable  provision  is  an  amendment,  coming  in  after  the 
original  instrument  had  been  ratified,  thus  over-riding  and 
controlling,  like  all  other  amendments,  whatever  in  the  origi- 
nal instrument  may  have  been  supposed  to  be  of  a contrary 
bearing. 

The  ratification  of  Rhode  Island  was  longest  withheld,  and 
was  most  remarkable  in  its  mode  of  expression.  It  was,  in 
fact,  conditional.  It  specified  a long  list  of  declarations  of 
risrhts,  and  then  said  : 

“ Under  these  impressions,  and  declaring  that  the  rights  aforesaid  cannot 
be  abridged,  and  that  the  explanations  aforesaid  are  consistent  with  the  said 
Constitution,  and  in  confidence  that  the  amendments  hereafter  mentioned 
will  receive  an  early  and  mature  deliberation,  and  conformably  to  the  5th 
article  of  said  Constitution,  speedily  become  parts  thereof : We  the  said 
delegates,”  &c.,  &c.,  “ do  assent  to  and  ratify  the  said  Constitution.” 

Among  these  declarations  of  rights  were  some  equivalent 
to  those  of  the  Declaration  of  Independence. 

Among  the  proposed  amendments,  above  mentioned,  was 
the  following : 

“ As  a traffic  tending  to  establish  or  continue  the  slaverrj  of  any  part  of 
the  human  species,  is  disgraceful  to  the  cause  of  religion  and  humanity,  that 


90 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


Congress  as  soon  as  may  be,  promote  and  establish  such  laws  as  may 
effectually  prevent  the  importation  of  slaves,  of  any  description,  into  the 
United  States.” 

From  this  it  is  seen,  that  the  State  whose  citizens  were  most 
deeply  engaged  in  the  lucrative  importation  of  slaves,  the  only 
State,  perhaps,  that  was  growing  rich  by  the  continuance  of  the 
slave  system , consented  to  ratify  the  Federal  Constitution  only 
on  condition  that  the  traffic  should  be  speedily  prohibited.  ISTo 
other  ratification  of  the  Constitution  was  ever  made  by  Rhode 
Island.  She  never  consented  to  the  twenty  years’  delay  of  that 
prohibition. 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


91 


CHAPTER  X. 

OF  DIRECT  ANTI-SLAVERY  EFFORTS,  INCLUDING  ECCLESIASTI- 
CAL ACTION,  FROM  THE  PERIOD  OF  THE  REVOLUTION  TO 
THE  CLOSE  OF  THE  LAST  CENTURY,  AND  THE  ABOLITION 
OF  SLAVERY  IN  THE  NORTHERN  STATES. 

Republication  of  Hopkins’  Dialogue  (17S5) — Edwards’  Sermon  (1791) — Anti-Slavery 
Meeting  at  Woodbridge,  N.  J.  (1783) — Abolition  Societies  in  Pennsylvania,  New 
York,  Rhode  Island,  Connecticut,  Maryland,  Virginia,  New  Jersey,  Delaware — 
Names  of  distinguished  abolitionists — Memorial  to  Leg.  of  New  York,  by  Jay, 
Hamilton,  &c. — Petitions  to  Congress,  by  B.  Franklin  and  others — Discussions  in 
Congress — William  and  Mary  College  (Va.) — -Action  of  Methodist  E.  Conference — 
Presb.  General  Assembly — Baptists — Action  of  the  Sttftcs — Virginia,  Delaware, 
Rhode  Island,  Vermont — Massachusetts — Pennsylvania — New  Hampshire,  Con,- 
necticut — New  York — New  Jersey7 — Census  of  remaining  slaves. 

Significant  as  are  the  facts  recorded  in  the  two  preceding 
chapters,  they  would  fail  of  producing  their  full  and  proper 
impression,  unless  connected  with  an  account  of  other  move- 
ments witnessed  at  the  same  time,  and  extending  to  a still 
later  period  of  our  history.  It  was  not  in  the  National  Coun- 
cils alone,  the  resolutions  and  acts  of  Congress,  the  corres- 
ponding proceedings  of  State  and  County  Conventions,  the 
action  of  State  legislatures,  and  the  declarations  of  prominent 
statesmen,  that  the  rising  of  sentiment  against  slavery  wras 
apparent.  Then,  as  at  other  times,  under  popular  institu- 
tions, such  manifestations  were  to  be  regarded  as  evidences  of 
a still  broader  and  deeper  current  of  public  opinion,  that  was 
producing  them.  Then,  as  now  ; here,  as  in  Great  Britain, 
the  public  bodies  and  functionaries  nearest  to  the  people, 
freshest  from  their  bosom,  most  accessible  to  their  inspection, 


92 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


and  most  directly  and  vitally  amenable  to  them  (“  Represen- 
tatives ” and  “ Commons,”  in  distinction  from  “ Lords  ” and 
“Senates”),  were  most  deeply  imbued  with  the  principles  of 
justice  and  freedom — a general  fact  of  incalculable  weight  in 
the  argument  for  thoroughly  democratic  institutions. 

And  back  ,of  this  general  public  sentiment  against  slavery, 
were  the  moral  influences  that  had  been  operating  in  that 
direction — the  religious  testimonies  and  the  ecclesiastical  action 
before  mentioned.  The  power  of  the  press,  and  of  voluntary 
association,  irrespective  of  sect,  followed  soon  afterward. 

The  first  edition  of  Hopkins’  Dialogue  was  published  at 
Norwich,  Connecticut,  early  in  1776,  as  before  stated.  Its 
circulation  was  extensive,  and  is  known  to  have  produced  a 
powerful  impression  upon  the  minds  of  reflecting  men,  includ- 
ing some  in  high  stations.  A second  edition  was  issued  in 
New  York  in  1785,  “by  vote  of  the  society  for  promoting 
the  manumission  of  slaves” — of  which  John  Jay  was  Presi- 
dent, and  which  had  been  formed  January  25th  of  that  same 
year. 

Another  publication,  of  great  weight  and  influence,  was  the 
celebrated  sermon  of  Dr.  Jonathan  Edwards,  of  New  Haven, 
Conn.,  afterwards  President  of  Union  College,  Schenectady, 
preached  before  the  Connecticut  Society  for  the  Promotion  of 
Freedom,  &c.,  Sept.  15,  1791.  It  is  a masterpiece  of  logical 
argument,  and  was  extensively  circulated  by  the  manumission 
and  abolition  societies  of  that  period,  as  it  has  been  since  by 
the  more  modern  anti-slavery  societies. 

By  these  two  publications,  the  argument  against  slavery 
was  placed  upon  a deeper  and  broader  theological  and  meta- 
physical basis,  and  was  pushed  to  more  startling  and  radical 
conclusions,  than  in  any  previous  writings  on  the  subject  with 
which  we  are  acquainted.  And  it  may  safely  be  said  that  no 
later  writers  have  gone  beyond  them  in  affirming  the  inherent 
sinfulness  and  deep  criminality  of  slaveholding,  and  the  duty 
of  immediate  and  unconditional  emancipation.  Particularly 
is  this  true  of  the  sermon  of  Edwards.  If  others  have  insisted 
upon  these  points  with  more  vehemence  of  declamation,  or 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


93 


with  a more  brilliant  display  of  rhetoric,  there  is  no  one  wrho 
has  more  deliberately  and  triumphantly  demonstrated  those 
truths  by  a process  of  cool  iron-linked  argument,  placing  it 
forever  beyond  the  power  of  man  to  unsettle  them,  without 
dethroning  the  moral  sense,  rejecting  the  inductions  of  reason, 
and  abjuring  the  Christian  religion.  It  is  not  known  that  any 
writer  or  public  speaker  of  any  note,  has  ever  attempted  to 
grapple  with  that  sermon,  attempting  to  criticize,  or  to  con- 
fute it.  And  yet  this  forbearance  cannot  be  because  the  lan- 
guage employed  is  more  smooth  and  mild  than  that  of  other 
writings  that  have  been  criticized  as  denunciatory.  The 
preacher  distinctly  charges  upon  the  slaveholder  the  crime  of 
man-stealing,  and  the  repetition  of  the  crime  every  day  he 
continues  to  hold  a slave  in  bondage.  He  charges  him  also 
with  “ theft  or  robbery” — nay,  with  “ a greater  crime  than  for- 
nication, theft,  or  robbery.”  He  predicts  that,  “ if  we  may 
judge  the  future  by  the  past,  within  fifty  years  from  this  time 
it  will  be  as  shameful  for  a man  to  hold  a negro  slave,  as  to 
b^  guilty  of  common  robbery  or  theft.”  In  an  appendix,  Dr. 
Edwards  answers  objections  against  immediate  emancipation, 
just  as  modern  abolitionists  answer  them  now. 

Such  were  the  sentiments  which  the  abolition  societies  of 
the  last  century,  directed  by  the  patriots  of  the  American 
Revolution,  the  founders  of  the  Union,  the  framers  and 
the  adopters  of  the  Federal  Constitution,  were  intent  to  circu- 
late through  the  country.  If  some  of  them,  as  statesmen,  did 
not  fully  carry  out  the  idea  of  immediate  emancipation  taught 
in  such  writings,  they  circulated  them  among  the  people, 
nevertheless.  These  were  the  effective  weapons  of  their  war- 
fare against  slavery,  so  far  as  they  succeeded  at  all.  By  these 
doctrines,  mainly,  the  public  conscience  was  reached,  and  the 
measures  put  in  progress,  which  finally  resulted  in  the  aboli- 
tion of  slavery  in  some  of  the  States.  The  doctrines  are  none 
the  less  true  and  trustworthy  because  the  partial  adoption  of 
them  produced  but  partial  and  tardy  results.  If  the  abolition 
of  slavery  in  some  of  the  States  was  so  slow  and  gradual  as 
to  occupy  a whole  generation  or  more  in  the  process,  if  in 


94 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


some  others  it  still  lingers,  or  has  been  indefinitely  postponed, 
while  the  system  has  strengthened  itself,  and  the  slave  power 
has  assumed  the  control  of  the  nation  and  stealthily  reversed 
its  policy,  the  fault  does  not  lie  in  the  teachings  of  Hopkins 
and  Edwards,  but  in  the  mistaken  prudence  of  those  who 
thought  it  more  wise  and  safe  to  follow  but  partially  in  prac- 
tice what  was  admitted  to  be  right  and  true  in  the  abstract. 
To  this  single  fallacy,  the  failure  of  the  Revolutionary  aboli- 
tionists, in  their  intended  overthrow  of  American  slaverv, 
may  be  distinctly  traced.  “ The  ruse  of  gradualism,”  iden- 
tical with  deferred  repentance  for  sin,  produced  its  accustomed 
and  legitimate  fruits.  It  deceived  them,  as  it  deceives  the 
greater  portion  of  mankind. 

We  may  honor  their  earnest  endeavors,  nevertheless,  and 
rejoice  in  the  success,  however  limited,  with  which  their  labors 
were  crowned.  It  should  be  ours  to  emulate  their  love  of 
freedom,  and  avoid  their  mistakes,  the  repetition  of  which 
would  be  less  excusable  in  us. 

An  important  and  highly  spirited  anti-slavery  meeting. is 
said  to  have  been  held  at  Woodbridge,  New  Jersey,  appro- 
priately convened  on  the  4th  of  July,  1783,  just  seven  years 
after  the  Declaration  of  inalienable  rights  that  was  now  ad- 
mitted to  have  been  manfully  and  successfully  sustained. 
Dr.  Bloomfield,  father  of  Governor  Bloomfield  of  New  Jersey, 
is  said  to  have  presided  on  that  joyous  occasion,  which  was 
celebrated  by  a public  dinner,  for  which  was  provided  a 
roasted  ox— a circumstance  that  attests  the  general  and  cor- 
dial attendance  of  the  citizens.  Who  could  have  predicted 
the  era  of  pro-slavery  mobs  against  abolition  meetings  then? 
Who  would  have  looked  for  biblical  defences  of  slaveholding, 
from  the  high  places  of  Princeton  ? Who  would  have  be- 
lieved that  churches  and  pulpits/generally,  throughout  the 
country,  would  ever  be  closed  against  the  discussion  of  slavery, 
for  fear  of  “ disturbing  the  peace  of  our  Zion  ?”  Who  would 
have  believed  that  anti-slavery  agitation  would  ever  have  been 
regarded  with  abhorrence,  as  adverse  to  “ the  perpetuitv  of 
our  glorious  Union  ?”  What  value  could  the  patriots  of  that 


SLAVERY  ANT)  FREEDOM.  95 

day  have  attached  to  any  union  that  was  not  cemented  on  the 
basis  of  freedom,  and  designed  for  its  guaranty? 

ABOLITION-  SOCIETIES. 

It  may  be  difficult  to  enumerate  all  the  manumission  and 
abolition  societies  of  this  period,  or  to  fix,  accurately,  the  pre- 
cise dates  of  their  organization.  The  particulars  that  follow 
embody  what  we  have  at  command. 

Dr.  Holmes,  in  his  “ American  Annals,”  says  that  the  Abo- 
lition Society  of  Pennsylvania  was  formed  in  1774,  and  was 
enlarged  in  1787.  Hildreth,  in  his  “ History  of  the  United 
States,”  says  the  Pennsylvania  Society  was  the  first.  Edward 
Heedles,  in  his  “Historical  Memoir  of  the  Pennsylvania  Soci- 
ety for  the. abolition  of  Slaver}',  the  relief  of  free  negroes  un- 
lawfully held  in  bondage,  and  for  improving  the  African  race,” 
says  the  first  associated  action  in  Philadelphia  was  a meeting 
of  a few  individuals  at  the  Sun  tavern  in  Second-street,  April 
14,  1775, * when  a society  was  formed  “ for  the  relief  of  free 
negroes  unlawfully  held  in  bondage.”  The  society  met  four 
tim.es  in  1775,  and  adjourned  to  meet  in  1776;  but,  on  account 
of  the  war,  no  meeting  occurred  till  February,  1784,  after 
which  its  meetings  were  continued  till  March,  1787,  when  the 
Constitution  was  so  revised  as  to  include  prominently  “ the 
abolition  of  slavery,"  as  in  the  above  title.  Of  this  Society,  Dr. 
Benjamin  Franklin  was  chosen  President. 

The  Hew  York  “Society  for  promoting  the  Manumission 
of  Slaves,  and  protecting  such  of  them  as  have  been  or  may 
be  liberated,”  was  formed  January  25,  1785,  as  before  men- 
tioned. Of  this  society,  John  Jay  was  the  first  President. 
On  being  appointed  Chief-Justice  of  the  United  States,  he  re- 
signed, and  was  succeeded  by  Gen.  Alexander  Hamilton,  who 
held  the  office  a few  months,  until,  on  receiving  an  appoint- 
ment in  the  Federal  cabinet,  he  removed  to  Philadelphia,  and 
soon  after  his  place  was  filled  by  “ Gen.  Matthew  Clarkson, 
the  United  States  Marshal  for  Mew  York , a very  pious,  good 


One  year  later  than  the  statement  of  Dr.  Holmes. 


96 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


man,  and  belonging  to  a different  species  from  the  general 
race  of  slave-catching  marshals.”* 

May  5,  1786,  the  committee  of  the  New  York  Society  re- 
ported that  a similar  society  was  about  to  be  established  at 
Providence,  Rhode  Island.  In  1788  the  Pennsylvania  Society 
addressed  their  corresponding  members  in  Rhode  Island, 
about  vessels  fitting  out  there  in  defiance  of  the  laws  against 
the  slave  trade.  In  1791  the  Rhode  Island  Society  is  alluded 
to  as  having  memorialized  Congress,  in  conjunction  with  the 
abolition  societies  of  Connecticut,  New  York,  Pennsylvania, 
Baltimore,  Virginia,  and  two  societies  on  the  eastern  shore  of 
Maryland. 

The  Maryland  Abolition  Society  was  formed  in  1789.  The 
Connecticut  Abolition  Society  in  1790 ; the  Virginia  Abolition 
Society  in  1791.  The-  New  Jersey  Society  “for  promoting 
the  Abolition  of  Slavery,”  in  1792. 

The  Maryland  and  Virginia  Societies  had  auxiliaries  in  dif- 
ferent parts  of  those  States. 

There  was  also  a society  in  Delaware.  In  1794,  ten  socie- 
ties met  in  convention  in  Philadelphia,  and  continued  to  meet 
annually,  for  a number  of  years  afterwards. 

Of  the  Pennsylvania  Abolition  Society,  Benjamin  Franklin 
was  chosen  President,  and  Benjamin^Rush  Secretary,  both  sign- 
ers of  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  and  the  first-named 
just  returned  from  the  convention  that  drafted  the  Federal 
Constitution.  Among  the  officers  of  the  Maryland  Society 
was  Samuel  Chase,  one  of  the  signers  of  the  Declaration  of 
Independence,  afterwards  Judge  of  the  United  States’  Supreme 
Court,  and  Luther  Martin,  a member  of  the  Constitutional 
Convention:  Of  the  Connecticut  Abolition  Society,  Dr.  Ezra 
Stiles,  President  of  Yale  College,  was  the  first  President,  and 
Simeon  Baldwin  was  Secretary. 

“ Among  other  distinguished  individuals  who  were  efficient  officers  of 
these  abolition  societies,  and  delegates  from  their  respective  State  societies, 
at  the  annual  meetings  of  the  American  Convention  for  Promoting  the 


MSS.  by  Hon.  Wm.  Jay. 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


97 


Abolition  of  Slavery,  were  Hon.  Uriah  Traey,  United  States  Senator  from 
Connecticut ; Hon.  Zephaniah  Swift,  Chief  Justice  of  the  same ; Hon. 
Ca?sar  A.  Rodney,  Attorney- General  of  the  United  States  ; Hon.  James  A. 
Bayard,  United  States  Senator  from  Delaware  ; Gov.  Bloomfield,  of  New 
Jersey ; Lion.  Wm.  Rawle,  the  late  venerable  head  of  the  Philadelphia 
bar;  Dr.  Casper  Wistar,  of  Philadelphia;  Messrs.  Foster  and  Tiliinghast, 
of  Rhode  Island  ; Messrs.  Ridgley,  Buchanan,  and\\  ilkinson,of  Maryland  ; 
and  Messrs.  Pleasants,  McLean,  and  Anthony,  of  Virginia.” — Power  of 
Congress,  &c.,  pp.  30,31. 

These  Abolition  Societies  and  the  officers  and  members  of 
them  were  not  idle.  They  agitated  the  subject,  circulated 
publications,  and  petitioned  legislative  bodies. 

In  1786,  John  Jay  drafted  and  signed  a memorial  to  the 
Legislature  of  New  York  against  slavery,  and  petitioning  for 
its  abolition,  declaring  that  the  men  held  as  slaves  by  the 
laws  of  New  York,  were  free  by  the  law  of  God.  Among  the 
other  petitioners  were  James  Duane,  Mayor  of  the  City  of 
New  York,  Robert  R.  Livingston,  afterwards  Secretary  of 
Foreign  Affairs  of  the  United  States  and  Chancellor  of  the 
State  of  New  York,  Alexander  Hamilton,  and  many  other 
eminent  citizens  of  the  State.* 

Nor  were  petitions  addressed  only  to  the  legislatures  of  the 
States  in  which  the  petitioners  resided.  The  doctrines  of 
moral  and  political  non-intervention  with  the  delicate  subject 
had  not  then  been  discovered.  The  do°'ma  that  Congress  has 
nothing  to  do  with  slavery  in  the  States  does  not  appear  to 
have  obtained  general  currency  at  that  period.  These  state- 
ments are  believed  to  express  simple  historical  facts , and  appli- 
cable up  to  a point  of  time  after  the  Federal  Constitution  had 
been  drafted,  discussed,  and  adopted,  and  the  Federal  Govern- 
ment under  that  Constitution  organized  and  put  in  operation. 
A few  particulars  will  suffice  to  justify  these  statements. 

Both  the  Virginia  and  Maryland  Abolition  Societies,  at  am 
early  day,  sent  up  memorials  to  Congress.  We  have  not  at 
hand  the  precise  dates,  nor  is  this  important.  The  dates  of 
the  organization  of  these  societies,  particularly  that  of  Vir- 


* MSS.  by  Hon.  Wm.  Jay. 

7 


98 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


ginia,  make  it  evident  that  their  petitions  were  addressed  to 
the  new  Federal  Government.  The  Connecticut  Abolition 
Society  sent  up  a petition  in  1791.  The  Society  of  Friends 
and  the  Pennsylvania  Abolition  Society  had  done  so,  still 
earlier,  and  their  petitions  came  before  the  first  Congress 
under  the  new  Constitution,  and  were  debated  February  12th, 
1790* 

These  petitions  were  addressed  to  Congress.  What  could 
the  petitioners  have  supposed  that  Congress  had  to  do  with 
the  subject?  The  Foreign  Slave  Trade,  at  that  time,  appears 
to  have  been  interdicted  by  most  of  the  States,  in  conformity 
with  the  original  compact  of  1774,  and  was  not  resumed,  even 
by  South  Carolina,  as  has  already  been  stated,  until  1803. 
And  among  the  “ compromises  of  the  Constitution,”  since 
claimed,  a prominent  one,  and  the  best  authenticated,  is  that 
which  prevented  Congress  from  interdicting  the  foreign  traffic, 
until  1808.  The  cession  of  the  District  of  Columbia  was  not 
accepted  by  Congress  until  July  16,  1790,  some  time  after  the 
presentation  of  the  Pennsylvania  petition.  The  seat  of  the 
Federal  Government,  then,  and  for  some  years  afterwards, 
was  at  Philadelphia.  By  the  ordinance  of  1787,  slavery  had 
been  prohibited  in  the  North  Western  Territory,  and  no  one 
anticipated  the  admission  of  any  new  slave  states.  What, 
then,  was  there  for  Congress  to  do,  according  to  the  doctrine 
of  non-intervention  now  entertained  ? What  was  it  that  the 
petitioners  asked?  Against  what  did  they  petition?  And 
where  did  it  exist? 

A copy  of  the  Pennsylvania  petition  is  before  us,  and  por- 
tions of  those  from  Connecticut  and  Virginia. 

The  Connecticut  petitioners,  (Pres.  Stiles,  Simeon  Baldwin, 
&c.)  say : 

“ From  a sober  conviction  of  the  unrighteousness  of  slavery,  your 


* Mr.  Weld’s  pamphlet  and  the  Liberty  Bell  give  the  date  1789,  but  Washington 
was  not  inaugurated  until  April  80tli  of  that  year,  and  the  “ first  Congress”  com- 
menced its  first  session,  April  7th.  Besides,  the  petition  of  the  Pennsylvania  So- 
ciety, signed  by  Benjamin  Franklin,  as  published  in  the  Liberty  Bell,  bears  date 
Feb.  8,  1790,  and  the  Journal  of  Congress  mentions  its  presentation,  Feb.  12,  1790. 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


99 


petitioners  have  long  beheld  with  grief  our  fellow-men  doomed  to  perpe- 
tual bondage  in  a country  which  boasts  her  freedom.  Your  petitioners 
are  fully  of  opinion  that  calm  reflection  will  at  last  convince  the  world  that 
the  whole  svstem  of  American  slavery  is  unjust  in  its  nature,  im- 
politic in  its  principles,  and  in  its  consequences  ruinous  to  the  industry  and 
enterprise  of  the  citizens  of  THESE  STATES.” 

The  “ Virginia  Society  for  the  Abolition  of  Slavery,”  &c., 
in  addressing  the  Congress  of  the  United  States,  say  : 

“ Your  memorialists,  fully  aware  that  righteousness  exalteth  a nation,  and 
that  SLAVERY  is  not  only  an  odious  degradation,  but  an  outrageous  viola- 
tion of  one  of  the  most  essential  rights  of  human  nature,  and  utterly  repug- 
nant to  the  precepts  of  the  Gospel,  which  breathes  ‘ peace  on  earth  and 
good  will  to  men,’  lament  that  a practice  so  inconsistent  with  true  policy 
and  the  inalienable  rights  of  men,  should  subsist  in  so  enlightened  an  age. 
and  among  a people  professing  that  all  mankind  are,  by  nature,  equally  en- 
titled to  freedom.” 

“ The  memorial  of  the  Pennsylvania  Society  for  promoting 
the  abolition  of  Slavery,”  &c.,  addressed  “to  the  Senate  and 
House  of  Representatives  of  the  United l States contains  the 
following : 

“Your  memorialists,  particularly  engaged  in  attending  to  the  distresses 
arising  from  SLAVERY,  believe  it  to  be  their  indispensable  duty  to  present 
this  subject  to  your  notice.  They  have  observed,  with  real  satisfaction, 
that  many  important  and  salutary  powers  are  vested  in  you,  for  ‘ pro- 
moting the  welfare  and  securing  theblessings  of  liberty  to  the  PEOPLE 
of  the  UNITED  STATES  and  as  they  conceive  that  these  blessings 
ought  rightfully  to  be  administered,  without  distinction  of  color,  to  all 
descriptions  of  people,  so  they  indulge  themselves  in  the  pleasing  expecta- 
tion that  nothing  which  can  be  done  for  the  relief  of  the  unhappy  objects 
of  their  care,  will  be  either  omitted  or  delayed. 

“ From  a persuasion  that  equal  liberty  was  originally  the  portion,  and  is 
still  the  birth-right  of  all  men,  and  influenced  by  the  strong  ties  of  humanity 
and  the  principles  of  their  institution,  your  memorialists  conceive  themselves 
bound  to  use  all  justifiable  endeavors  to  loosen  the  bonds  of  slavery',  and 
promote  a general  enjoyment  of  the  blessings  of  freedom.  Under  these 
impressions,  they  earnestly  entreat  your  attention  to  the  subject  of  slavery ; 
that  you  will  be  pleased  to  countenance  the  restoration  to  liberty  of 


* This  language  is  evidently  taken  from  the  Preamble  to  the  Federal  Constitu- 
tion. “ We,  the  people  of  the  United  States,  in  order  to  promote  the  general  we- 
lfare. and  secure  the  blessings  of  liberty,”  &c.,  &c. 

1 ' * 


100 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


those  unhappy  men,  who,  alone,  in  this  land  of  freedom , are  degraded  into 
perpetual  bondage,  and  who,  amid  the  general  joy  of  surrounding  freemen, 
are  groaning  in  servile  subjection  ; that  you  will  devise  means  for  re- 
moving THIS  INCONSISTENCY  OF  CHARACTER  FROM  THE  AMERICAN 
PEOPLE  ; that  you  will  promote  mercy  and  justice  towards  this  distressed 
race  ; and  that  you  will  step  to  the  very  verge  of  the  power  vested  in  you 
for  discouraging  every  species  of  traffic  in  the  persons  of  our  fellow-men. 

BENJAMIN  FRANKLIN,  President.”'"' 

Philadelphia,  Feb.  3,  1790.  [Federal  Gazette,  1790.] 

DISCUSSIONS  IN  CONGRESS. 

How  were  these  petitions  understood  in  Congress  ? How 
were  they  received  and  treated?  Were  they  understood  to 
look  in  the  direction  of  a general  removal  of  slavery,  as  well 
as  the  slave  trade?  Were  the  petitioners  denounced  as  fa- 
natics and  madmen  ? Was  the  application  repelled  as  treason 
against  the  Constitution  and  the  Union?  On  the  other  hand, 
were  there  any  who  expressed  a readiness  “to  espouse  their 
cause  ” ? The  reader  of  the  following  extracts  from  the  dis- 
cussions, will  judge. 

In  the  debate  on  the  petition  from  Pennsylvania,  Mr.  Par- 
ker-, of  Virginia,  said : 

“ I hope,  Mr.  Speaker,  the  petition  of  these  respectable  people  will  be 
attended  to,  with  all  the  readiness  the  importance  of  its  object  demands ; 
and  1 cannot  help  expressing  the  pleasure  I feel  in  finding  so  considerable  a 
part  of  the  community  attending  to  matters  of  such  a momentous  concern 
to  the  future  prosperity  and  happiness  of  the  people  of  America.  I think 
it  my  duty,  as  a citizen  of  the  Union,  to  espouse  their  cause.” 

Mr.  Page,  of  Virginia  (afterward  Governor)  “was  in  favor  of  the  com- 
mitment. He  hoped  that  the  designs  of  the  respectable  memorialists  would 
not  be  stopped  at  the  threshold,  in  order  to  preclude  a fair  discussion  of  the 
prayer  of  the  memorial.  With  respect  to  the  alarm  that  was  apprehended, 
he  conjectured  there  was  none  ; but  there  might  be  just  cause,  if  the  me- 
morial was  not  taken  into  consideration.  He  placed  himself  in  the  case 
of  the  slave,  and  said  that,  on  hearing  that  Congress  had  refused  to  listen  to 
the  decent  suggestions  of  a respectable  part  of  the  community,  he  should 
infer  that  the  general  Government,  from  which  was  expected  great 


* This  was  probably  the  last  important  public  act  of  Franklin,  who  died  the 
same  year. 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


101 


good  would  result  to  every  class  of  citizens,* * * §  had  shut  their  ears 
against  the  voice  of  humanity,  and  he  should  despair  of  any  alleviation  of 
the  miseries  he  and  his  posterity  had  in  prospect.  If  anything  could  induce 
him  to  rebel,  it  must  be  a stroke  like  this,  impressing  on  his  mind  all  the 
horrors  of  despair.  But  if  he  was  told  that  application  was  made  in  his 
behalf,  and  that  Congress  were  willing  to  hear  what  could  be  urged  in  favor 
of  discouraging  the  practice  of  importing  his  fellow7-wretches,  he  would 
trust  in  their  justice  and  humanity,  and  wait  the  decision  patiently.” 

Mr.  Scott,  of  Pennsylvania : “ I cannot,  for  my  part,  conceive  how  any 
person  can  be  said  to  acquire  property  in  another  -;f  but — enough  of 
those  who  reduce  men  to  the  state  of  transferable  goods,  or  use  them  like 
beasts  of  burden,  who  deliver  them  up  as  the  patrimony  or  property  of 
another  man.J  Let  us  argue  on  principles  countenanced  by  reason  and 
becoming  humanity.  I do  not  know  how  far  I might  go  if  1 was  one  of 
the  Judges  of  the  United  States,  and  those  people  were  to  come  before  me, 
and  claim  their  emancipation  ; but  I am  sure  I would  go  as  far  as  I could. 

Mr.  Burke,  of  South  Carolina,  said  : “ He  saw  the  disposition  of  the 
House,  and  he  feared  it  would  be  referred  to  a committee,  maugre  all  their 
opposition.” 

Mr.  Smith,  of  South  Carolina,  said  : “ that  on  entering  into  this  govern- 
ment, they  (South  Carolina  and  Georgia)  apprehended  that  the  other  States, 
not  knowing  the  necessity  of  the  citizens  of  the  Southern  States,  would, 
from  motives  of  humanity  and  benevolence,  be  led  to  vote  for  a general 
emancipation  ; and,  had  they  not  seen  that  the  Constitution  provided 
against  the  effect  of  such  a disposition,  I may  be  bold  to  say  they  never 
would  have  adopted  it.” 

“ In  the  debate,  at  the  same  session,  May  13th,  on  the  petition  of  the 
Society  of  Friends  respecting  the  slave  trade,  Mr.  Parker,  of  Virginia, 
said : ‘ Pie  hoped  Congress  would  do  all  that  lay  in  their  power  to  restore 
to  human  nature  its  inherent  privileges , and,  if  possible,  wipe  out  the 
stigma  that  America  labored  under.  The  inconsistency  in  our  principles, 
with  which  we  are  justly  charged,  should  be  done  away,  that  we  may  show, 
by  our  actions,  the  pure  beneficence  of  the  doctrine  we  held  out  to  the 
world  in  our  Declaration  of  Independence.’  ” 

“ Mr.  Jackson,  of  Georgia,  said : ‘ It  was  the  fashion  of  the  day 
to  favor  the  liberty  of  the  slaves.  * * * What  is  to  be  done 

for  compensation  ? Will  Virginia  set  all  her  negroes  free  ? Will  they  give 


* Here,  again,  we  find  the  negro  slaves  expressly  designated  as  citizens. 

t Another  blow  at  the  idea  of  the  legality  of  slavery. 

J How  does  this  harmonize  with  the  Constitutional  obligation  of  delivering  up 
fugitive  slaves  ? 

§ A pregnant  hint  of  the  speaker’s  impression  of  the  duties  of  the  Federal 
Courts. 


102 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


up  the  money  they  have  cost  them,  and  to  whom  1 When  this  practice 
comes  to  be  tried,  then  the  sound  of  liberty  will  lose  those  charms  which 
make  it  grateful  to  the  ravished  ear.’  ” 

“Mr.  Madison,  of  Virginia:  ‘The  dictates  of  humanity,  the  principles 
of  the  people,  the  national  safety  and  happiness,  and  prudent  policy,  require 
it  of  us.  The  Constitution  has  particularly  called  our  attention  to  it.  * * 

I conceive  the  Constitution  in  this  particular  was  formed  in  order  that  the 
Government,  whilst  it  was  restrained  from  laying  a total  prohibition,  might 
be  able  to  give  some  testimony  of  the  sense  of  America,  with  respect  to 
the  African  trade.  * * * It  is  to  be  hoped,  that  by  expressing  a 

national  disapprobation  of  the  trade,  we  may  destroy  it,  and  save  our 
country  from  reproaches,  and  our  posterity  from  the  imbecility  ever  atten- 
dant on  a country  filled  with  slaves.  I do  not  wish  to  say  anything  harsh 
to  the  hearing  of  gentlemen  who  entertain  different  sentiments  from  me,  or 
different  sentiments  from  those  I represent.  But  if  there  is  any  one  point 
in  which  it  is  clearly  the  policy  of  this  nation,  so  far  as  we  constitu- 
tionally can,  to  vary  the  practice  obtaining  under  some  of  the  State  Go- 
vernments, it  is  this.  But  it  is  certain  that  a majority  of  the  States  are 
opposed  to  the  practice.” — Cong.  Reg.,  v.  i.,  pp.  308-12;  Weld's  Power  of 
Cong.,  &c.,  pp.  30-32. 

There  may  be  some  difficulty  in  apprehending,  clearly,  the 
import  of  some  of  the  expressions  used  in  this  debate.  This 
may  be  owing  to  our  making  a broad  distinction,  now,  which 
seems  scarcely  to  have  been  recognized  at  all,  then,  between 
the  slave  trade  and  slavery.  It  seems  to  have  been  taken  for 
granted  that  the  prohibition  of  the  former  would  involve, 
virtually,  the  extinction  of  the  latter.  Georgia  had  desired  a 
respite  of  twenty  years,  which,  by  the  Constitution,  had  been 
granted.  Thus  far  the  hands  of  Congress  were  tied.  Thus, 
at  least,  it  was  understood  by  the  speakers.  This  ivas  the  com- 
promise claimed.  This  exposition  of  the  position  of  the  speak- 
ers, if  it  be  correct,  enables  us  to  understand  the  drift  of  their 
arguments.  What  then  do  we  find  ? 

First,  we  have  the  presentation  of  petitions,  some  of  them 
said  to  be  in  respect  to  the  slave  trade,  others  of  them  (inclu- 
ding that  of  Dr.  Franklin)  as  evidently  bearing  upon  “sla- 
very” itself,  desiring  for  the  slaves  their  “ restoration  to 
liberty,”  and  that  Congress  would  “ devise  means,”  in  some 
way,  for  “removing  this  inconsistency  from  the  American 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


103 


character .”  The  two  descriptions  of  petitions  appear  to  have 
had  the  same  object,  and  to  have  been  received  and  considered 
accordingly. 

Next,  we  have  two  gentlemen  from  Virginia  decidedly 
“ espousing  the  cause  ” of  the  petitioners,  followed  up  by  a 
representative  of  Pennsylvania,  on  the  same  side. 

Then,  we  have  a specimen  of  the  opposition,  from  South 
Carolina  and  Georgia ; and  finally,  an  effort,  by  Mr.  Madison, 
to  reconcile  the  difference  between  the  parties,  though  strong- 
ly leaning  to  the  side  of  the  petitioners,  and  declaring  that  he 
represented , for  his  constituents,  those  sentiments. 

The  main  object  of  the  slave  party,  seems  to  have  been  to 
stave  off  present  action.  The  House,  and  the  Country,  they 
saw  and  acknowledged,  were  disposed  to  be  against  them— 
disposed  to  liberate  “ the  slaves They  pleaded  the  consti- 
tutional compromise,  that  is,  the  postponement  till  1808. 
Yet  they  raised  the  question  of  compensation , as  much  as  to 
intimate  that  if  the  country  was  ready  to  meet  their  demands 
in  this  respect,  they  might  waive  their  constitutional  objec- 
tions. And  this  was  then  the  extent  of  South  Carolinian 
and  Georgian  opposition  ! “ Humanity  and  benevolence ,”  they 

admitted,  was  on  the  side  of  the  petitioners,  and  of  those 
who  might  “ vote  for  a general  emancipation.”  Not  a word 
of  the  dangers  of  turning  the  slaves  loose.  Not  a single 
threat  of  dissolving  the  Union.  Not  a lisp  of  the  sacred  guar- 
anties of  the  Constitution,  of  the  obligation  to  protect  and 
extend  slavery  ! 

From  the  advocates  of  liberty,  in  the  House,  then,  we  hear 
no  concessions  of  the  compromises  of  the  Constitution.  Those, 
they  left  in  the  hands  of  their  opponents,  and  in  the  hands 
of  the  illustrious  pacificator  between  the  two  parties.  And 
even  his  (Mr.  Madison’s)  speech,  would  be  accounted  a radical 
abolition  harangue,  were  it  uttered  in  Congress  now.  It  is 
instructive  to  ponder  these  contrasts.  AVe  need  to  be  disa- 
bused of  our  vague  impressions  and  educational  prejudices,  if 
we  would  understand  the  relation  of  slavery  to  our  political 
institutions,  as  at  first  established. 


104 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


Little  incidents,  often,  more  tlian  imposing  official  docu-  5 
ments,  and  public  records,  reveal  public  character,  and  assist  j 1 
us  to  understand  the  spirit  and  temper  of  a particular  age  1 
or  people.  “ In  1791,  the  university  of  William  and  Mary, 
in  Virginia,  conferred  upon  Granville  Sharp,  of  England,  the 
Degree  of  Doctor  of  Laws.”*  Who  was  Granville  Sharp?  ! 
And  by  what  discoveries  in  the  sublime  science  of  jurispru- 
dence had  Granville  Sharp,  a clerk  in  the  ordinance  depart-  1 
mentof  Great  Britain,  commended  himself  to  a Virginian  Uni- 
versity, for  so  distinguishing  an  honor?  The  reader  of  the 
preceding  chapters  understands.  Granville  Sharp  had  dis- 
covered and  announced  the  utter  and  absolute  illegality  of  sla- 
very under  the  aegis  of  the  British  Constitution,  and  under 
the  jurisdiction  of  English  Common  Law.  With  this  dis- 
covery he  had  enlightened  the  British  mind,  had  reversed  the 
legal  decisions  and  opinions  of  York  and  Talbot — of  Black- 
stone  and  Mansfield.  Without  a seat  in  the  Court  of  King’s 
Bench,  nay,  without  the  credentials  that  could  entitle  him,  by 
the  usages  of  Court,  to  stand  up  in  its  presence  and  plead  a 
cause,  Granville  Sharp,  by  the  simple  force  of  his  lofty  intel- 
lect and  indomitable  and  righteous  purpose,  had  laid  his  hand 
on  that  Court  of  King’s  Bench,  and  compelled  it  to  do  (unwil- 
lingly enough)  his  bidding,  in  the  decree  that  “ slaves  cannot 
breathe  in  England.”  More  than  this — Granville  Sharp,  per- 
ceiving that  this  decree  was  binding  on  the  colonies  of  Bri- 
tain, as  well  as  on  the  mother  country,  had  solemnly  admon- 
ished the  British  prime  minister  of  his  high  responsibilities 
in  this  respect,  and  with  all  the  majesty  of  a holy  prophet  had 
charged  him,  on  the  peril  of  his  soul,  to  lose  no  time  in  sup- 
pressing slaver}*-  in  America.  This  was  the  high  merit  of  Gran- 
ville Sharp.  For  this,  he  wore,  meekly,  the  clustering  homage 
of  the  wise  and  good,  of  two  hemispheres.  The  University 
of  William  and  Mary,  in  Virginia,  eagerly  honored  herself 
by  honoring  Granville  Sharp.  What  a change  has  since 
taken  place  ! Had  Granville  Sharp  lived  to  visit  the  Univer- 


Power  of  Congress , &c.,  p.  36. 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


105 


sitj  of  William  and  Marj,  in  1835,  his  temerity  would  pro- 
bably have  cost  him  his  life.  He  would  have  subjected 
himself  to  the  liability  of  being  ignominiously  and  uncere- 
moniously hanged  up,  without  judge  or  jury,  or  condemned 
to  death  under  the  laws  of  the  State.*  Were  the  public  sen- 
timent of  Virginia,  and  of  the  whole  country,  now,  what  they 
were  in  1791,  those  English  philanthropists  who  are  now  de- 
nounced as  impertinent  intermeddlers,  would  be  fair  candi- 
dates for  the  highest  honors  of  the  University  of  William  and 
Mary,  in  Virginia. 

Can  it  be  credible  that  a change  of  sentiment  like  this  can 
have  come  over  Virginia,  and  over  the  nation,  without  bring- 
ing along  with  it  new  maxims  of  state  policy,  new  principles 
of  jurisprudence,  new  views  of  the  relation  of  slavery  to  our 
Constitution  and  laws?— and  with  these — of  necessity — new 
usages  of  Constitutional  exposition, — new  conceptions  of  the 
relations  described  by  it,  and  of  the  obligations  and  rights 
growing  out  of  those  relations  ? May  it  be  assumed,  without 
scrutiny,  that  the  usages  and  expositions  with  which  we,  in 
this  age,  have  become  familiarized,  are  trustworthy  ? 


* No  exaggeration  in  this.  The  very  writings  of  Granville  Sharp  could  not  have 
been  safely  circulated  in  Virginia  in  1S33,  if  indeed  they  can  be  at  present.  On 
charge  of  having  circulated  anti-slavery  writings,  Dr.  Reuben  Crandall  was  arrested 
and  tried  for  his  life,  in  the  District  of  Columbia,  and  on  prosecution  of  the  late 
Francis  S.  Key,  Esq.,  one  of  the  most  popular  citizens  of  the  District.  The  “ incen- 
diary publications,”  for  the  publishing  of  which  the  late  R.  G.  Williams,  of  New 
York,  was  indicted,  and  demanded  to  be  given  up  to  the  authorities  of  Alabama, 
by  the  Executive  of  that  State,  included  the  writings  of  Granville  Sharp,  and 
nothing  beside  them  that  could  have  been  more  offensive  than  they  must  have 
been.  Nothing  more  strongly  condemnatory  of  slavery  and  of  slaveholders  could 
have  beemfound  in  the  papers  pillaged  from  the  U.S.  mail  at  Charleston,  and  burnt. 
By  the  laws  of  Virginia,  the  publishing  or  circulating  of  publications  having  a ten- 
dency to  excite  slaves  or  free  people  of  color  to  insurrection  or  resistance,  is  punished 
with  thirty-nine  lashes ; the  second,  with  death."  Amos  Dresser,  though  without  the 
forms  of  a legal  trial,  suffered  a public  whipping  in  Tennessee.  "Whatever  may  have 
appeared  on  the  antiquated  statute  books  of  Virginia,  in  1791,  the  simple  incident 
we  have  recorded  affords  evidence  of  the  change  of  public  sentiment  we  have  de- 
scribed— a change  the  more  marked,  in  proportion  as  the  sentiment  of  1791  was  in 
opposition  to  her  own  statutes. 


106 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


ECCLESIASTICAL  BODIES — METHODISTS. 

The  position  and  language  of  ecclesiastical  bodies  at  that 
era,  furnish  another  significant  feature  of  our  history. 

In  the  year  1780,  the  sentiments  of  the  Methodist  societies  in  this 
country  were  thus  expressed  in  the  minutes  of  the  Conference  for  that  year  : 

“ The  Conference  acknowledges  that  slavery  is  contrary  to  the  laws  of 
God,  man,*  and  nature,  hurtful  to  society  ; contrary  to  the  dictates  of  con- 
science and  pure  religion,  and  doing  what  we  would  not  that  others  should 
do  unto  us,  and  they  pass  their  disapprobation  upon  all  our  friends  who  keep 
slaves,  and  they  advise  their  freedom.” — A.  S.  Manual , by  Sunderland , 
p.  58. 

In  1785,  the  following  language  was  held  by  the  M.  E. 
Church  : 

“We  do  hold  in  the  deepest  abhorrence  the  practice  of  slavery,  and  shall 
not  cease  to  seek  its  destruction,  by  all  wise  and  prudent  means.” 

The  following  is  extracted  from  Sunderland’s  Anti-Slavery 
Manual,  published  in  1837  : 

From  Lee’s  History  of  the  Methodists,  p.  101,  we  learn  that  the  M.  E. 
Church  was  organized  with  a number  of  express  rules  on  the  subject  which 
stipulated  that  slavery  should  not  be  continued  in  the  church.  One 
of  them  was  as  follows  : 

“ Every  member  in  our  Society  shall  legally  execute  and  record  an  instru- 
ment [for  the  purpose  of  setting  every  slave  in  his  possession  free]  within 
the  space  of  two  years.” 

Another  was  as  follows  : 

“ Every  person  concerned  who  will  not  comply  with  these  rules,  shall 
have  liberty  quietly  to  withdraw  from  our  Society  within  twelve  months 
following  the  notice  being  given  him  as  aforesaid  : — otherwise,  the  assistant 
shall  exclude  him  from  the  Society.” 

Another  rule  declared  that 

“ Those  who  bought  or  sold' slaves,  or  gave  them  away,  unless  on  purpose 
to  free  them,  should  be  expelled  immediately.” 


* “ Contrary  to  the  laws  of  man .”  Here  we  find  another  admission  of  the  ille- 
gality of  slavery,  corresponding  with  the  doctrines  of  Granville  Sharp,  the  decision 
of  Lord  Mansfield  in  the  Somerset  case,  the  expressions  of  Dr.  Hopkins,  the  decla- 
ration of  James  Madison,  and  the  speech  in  Congress  of  Mr.  Scott,  of  Pennsylvania. 
Were  all  these  ignorant  enthusiasts  ? Or  has  slavery  become  legalized  since  ? 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM.  107 

“And  forty  years  ago”  (i.  e.  in  1797),  the  discipline  of  this  church  con- 
tained the  following  directions  on  the  subject : 

“ The  preachers  and  other  members  of  our  Society  are  requested  to  con- 
sider the  subject  of  negro  slavery,  with  deep  attention,  and  that  they  impart 
to  the  General  Conference , through  the  medium  of  the  Yearly  Conferences, 
or  otherwise,  any  important  thoughts  on  the  subject,  that  the  Conference 
may  have  full  light,  in  order  to  take  further  steps  towards  eradicating 
this  enormous  evil  from  that  part  of  the  Church  of  God  with  which  they 
are  connected.  The  Annual  Conferences  are  directed  to  draw  up  addresses 
for  the  gradual  emancipation  of  the  slaves,  to  the  legislatures  of  those  States 
in  which  no  general  laws  have  been  passed  for  that  purpose.  These 
addresses  shall  urge,  in  the  most  respectful  but  pointed  manner,  the  neces- 
sity of  a law  for  the  gradual  emancipation  of  slaves.  Proper  committees 
shall  be  appointed  by  the  Annual  Conferences,  out  of  the  most  respectable 
of  our  friends,  for  conducting  the  business  ; and  presiding  elders,  elders, 
deacons,  and  travelling  preachers,  shall  procure  as  many  proper  signatures 
as  possible  to  the  addresses,  and  give  all  the  assistance  in  their  power,  in 
every  respect,  to  aid  the  committees,  and  to  forward  the  blessed  under- 
taking. Let  this  be  continued  from  year  to  $ear,  till  the  desired  end  be 
accomplished.” — A.  S.  Manual,  pp.  58-9. 

These  directions  were  not  a dead  letter.  Persons  still  living 
can  remember  the  circulating  of  anti-slavery  petitions,  and 
the  distributing  of  Wesley's  Tract  on  Slavery,  by  the  Metho- 
dist travelling  preachers,  as  a part  of  their  official  business. 
So  late  as  the  year  1803,  the  Hymn  Books  of  the  M.  E. 
Church,  published  by  Ezekiel  Cooper  for  the  M.  E.  Book 
Concern,  at  Philadelphia,  contained  advertisements  of  the 
“ Tract  on  Slavery.”  Here  then  was  the  entire  Methodist 
Episcopal  connection  organized  into  a society  for  anti-slavery 
agitation,  its  Annual  Conferences  inviting  free  discussion  and 
seeking  for  more  light , its  preachers  and  church  officers  circu- 
lating anti-slavery  publications  and  petitions  to  legislative 
bodies.  The  contrast  with  later  times  we  cannot  stop  here 
to  present. 

PRESBYTERIANS. 

The  General  Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  adopted, 
in  1791,  a note  to  the  one  hundred  and  forty-second  question 
in  the  larger  Catechism,  in  the  Confession  of  Faith,  in  the 
words  following: 


108 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


“ 1 Tim.  1 : 10.  ‘ The  law  is  made  for  man-stealers.’  This  crime, 

among  the  Jews,  exposed  the  perpetrators  of  it  to  capital  punishment, 
Exodus  21  : 16,  and  the  apostle  here  classes  them  with  sinners  of  the  first 
rank.  The  word  he  uses,  in  its  original  import,  comprehends  all  who  are 
concerned  in  bringing  any  of  the  human  race  into  slavery,  or  retaining  them 
in  it.  Hominum  fares,  qui  servos,  vel  libros  abducunt,  retincnt  vendunt,  vcl 
emunt.  Stealers  of  men  are  those  who  bring  off  slaves  or  freemen,  and 
keep,  sell,  or  buy  them.  To  steal  a freeman,  says  Grotius,  is  the  highest 
kind  of  theft.  In  other  instances  we  only  steal  human  property,  but  when 
vve  steal  or  retain  men  in  slavery,  we  seize  those  who,  in  common  with  Our- 
selves, are  constituted  by  the  original  grant,  lords  of  the  earth.  Gen.  1 : 28. 
Vide  Poli  Synopsin  in  loc .” 


BAPTISTS. 

“At  a meeting  of  the  General  Committee  of  the  Baptists  of  Virginia,  in 
1783.  the  following  point  came  up. — Semple's  Hist,  of  Baptists  in  Virginia. 

“ Whether  a petition  should  be  offered  to  the  General  Assembly,  praying 
that  the  yoke  of  slavery  may  be  made  more  tolerable.  Referred  to  the  next 
session.” 

“ 1789.  At  this  session  the  propriety  of  hereditary  slavdfy  was  also 
taken  up,  and  after  some  time  employed  in  the  consideration  of  the  subject, 
the  following  resolution  was  offered  by  Eld.  John  Leland,  and  adopted  : 

“ Resolved,  That  slavery  is  a violent  deprivation  of  the  rights  of  nature, 
and  inconsistent  with  republican  government,  and  therefore  (we)  recommend 
it  to  our  brethren  to  make  use  of  every  measure  to  extirpate  this  horrid 
evil  from  the  land  ; and  pray  Almighty  God  that  our  honorable  legislature 
may  have  it  in  their  power  to  proclaim  the  great  jubilee,  consistent  with  the 
principles  of  good  policy.” — “ Facts  for  Baptist  Churches,"  p.  305. 

Action  in  Vermont. — The  minutes  of  the  Shaftsbury  Asso- 
ciation, in  1792,  contain  an  expression  against  the  slave  trade, 
and  in  favor  of  universal  liberty. — lb. 

“ According  to  Benedict  (History  of  the  Baptists,  first  edition),  there  was, 
in  1805,  an  Association  of  Baptists  in  Northern  Kentucky,  who  separated 
themselves  from  slaveholding  Baptists,”  &c.  “ Eld.  David  Barrow,  once 

a Virginia  slaveholder,  became,  after  emancipating  his  slaves,  one  of  their 
principal  men.  He  wrote  a pamphlet  on  slavery,  entitled  ‘ Involuntary, 
unmerited,  perpetual,  absolute,  hereditary  slavery,  examined  on  the  princi- 
ples of  nature,  reason,  justice,  policy,  and  Scripture.’ — Other  prominent 
advocates  of  these  principles  were,  Elders  Dodge,  Carman,  Sutton,  Holmes, 
Tarrant,  Grigg,  and  Smith.” — lb.  p.  366. 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


109 


LEGISLATIVE  AND  JUDICIAL  ACTION. 

Legislative  and  judicial  action  against  slavery  in  several  of 
the  States,  was  the  natural  result  of  the  moral  and  religious 
influences  described  in  this  and  the  preceding  chapters,  and 
on  the  whole  the  effects  may  be  considered  commensurate 
with  the  causes  operating  for  the  production  of  them.  If  it 
be  said  that  the  gradual  and  prospective  emancipation  pro- 
vided for  by  the  legislatures  of  several  States  did  not  corres- 
pond with  the  doctrines  of  the  inherent  sinfulness  of  slavery 
and  of  the  duty  of  immediate  and  unconditional  abolition, 
insisted  on  by  Hopkins  and  Edwards,  and  exemplified  by 
some  of  the  Congregational  churches,  it  must  be  remembered 
that  these  testimonies  were  not  fully  received  and  adopted  by 
some  of  the  eminent  statesmen  at  the  head  of  the  anti-slavery 
societies  by  whom  these  writings  had  been  circulated.  Ideas 
of  supposed  necessity,  expediency,  or  convenience,  tvere  per- 
mitted to  modify  and  control  the  direct  and  full  application 
of  principles  admitted  to  be  true  and  right  in  the  abstract. 
Those  testimonies,  moreover,  had  been  counteracted  and  neu- 
tralized by  the  gradual  and  tardy  action,  with  few  exceptions, 
of  ecclesiastical  bodies,  including  even  the  Society  of  Friends. 
It  was  hardly  to  be  expected  that  the  work  of  purification  in 
the  State  would  be  more  speedy  and  thorough  than  in  the 
Church. 

A paragraph  from  an  Appendix,  by  Dr.  Hopkins,  to  the 
second  edition  of  his  Dialogue  on  Slavery,  printed  at  Hew 
York,  under  sanction  of  the  Manumission  Society,  in  1785, 
embraces,  in  a few  words,  an  account  of  the  progress  that  had 
been  made  since  the  publication  of  the  first  edition,  early  in 
1776. 

“ Since  the  publication  of  this  Dialogue,  many  things  have  been  done  and 
steps  taken  towards  a reformation  of  this  evil.  In  the  States  of  Massachu- 
setts and  New  Hampshire  the  slavery  of  the  blacks  is  wholly  abolished. 
And  it  is  one  of  the  fundamental  articles  in  the  Constitution  of  the  proposed 
State  of  Vermont,  that  no  slavery  shall  be  tolerated  there.  The  States  of 
Rhode  Island,  Connecticut,  Pennsylvania,  and. the  lower  counties  of  the 


110 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


Delaware,  have  provided  for  the  gradual  abolition  of  slavery,  and  have 
ordered  that  all  the  blacks  who  shall  be  hereafter  born  in  these  States,  shall 
be  free  at  a certain  age,  and  that  no  more  slaves  shall  be  introduced  among 
them.  And  the  State  of  Virginia  has  repealed  a law,  which  was  formerly 
in  force  there,  against  the  freeing  of  the  blacks,  and  now  allows  the  masters 
of  slaves  to  free  them  when  they  please.  Thus,  all  the  States  but  five,* 
have  manifested  a disposition  to  promote  the  freedom  of  the  Africans.! 
And  numbers  of  slaves  have  been  liberated  by  their  masters,  under  a con- 
viction of  the  unrighteousness  of  holding  them  in  slavery.  This  is  a great 
advance  in  the  desired  reformation,  and  has  given  ground  to  hope  that 
slavery  will  he  'wholly  abolished  in  all  the  United  States  of  America.” 

To  this  it  might  have  been  added,  that  “ in  the  Convention 
that  formed  the  Constitution  of  Kentucky,  in  1780,  the  effort 
to  prohibit  slavery  was  nearly  successful.”  “ But  for  the 
great  influence  of  two  large  slaveholders — Messrs.  Breckin- 
ridge and  Nicholson  ’’—the  measure,  it  is  believed,  would 
have  been  carried. — “ Poiver  of  Congress ,”  &c.  p.  84. 

Virginia,  in  1786,  enacted  that  every  slave  imported  into 
the  Commonwealth  should  be  free. 

It  is  to  be  lamented  that  Virginia  should  have  since 
re-enacted  her  laws  against  emancipation,  and  in  many  ways 
sought  to  strengthen  the  slave  system.  In  Delaware,  too, 
there  must  have  been  some  retrograde  steps,  though  the  num- 
ber of  slaves  has  greatly  diminished  since  1785. 

In  1777,  the  people  of  Vermont  met  in  Convention  and 
proclaimed  Vermont  an  independent  State.  The  first  article 
of  their  bill  of  rights  excluded  slavery.  Though  not  admit- 
ted into  the  Confederacy  (owing  to  some  claims  of  New  York) 
till  1789,  Vermont  has  the  honor  of  having  first  provided  for 
the  abolition  of  slavery.  Seventeen  slaves  are  indeed  set 


* The  statement  should  have  been  six,  viz.  New  York,  Maryland,  New  Jersey,  the 
two  Carolinas,  and  Georgia.  Vermont,  a new  State,  having  been  reckoned,  there 
were  fourteen  States  then  in  the  Union,  instead  of  the  original  thirteen,  in  the  mind 
of  the  writer. 

t Virginia  and  Delaware,  it  seems,  were  then  counted  upon  as  beiDg  on  the  side 
of  freedom,  while  New  York  and  New  Jersey  were  reckoned  on  the  other  side. 
Another  fact  to  be  adjusted  to  the  current  theory  of  constitutional  guaranties,  which 
would  present  to  us  New  York  and  New  Jersey  refusing  to  come  into  the  Union, 
unless  Virginia  and  Delaware  would  enter  into  the  “ compact”  to  hunt  fugitive 
slaves,  &e. ! 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


Ill 


down  to  Vermont  in  the  census  of  1790.  The  revised  Con- 
stitution of  1793  retains  the  prohibition  of  slavery. 

“ In  Massachusetts,  it  was  judicially  declared,  soon  after  the  Revolution, 
that  slavery  was  virtually  abolished  by  the  Constitution,  and  that  the  issue 
of  a female  slave,  though  born  prior  to  the  Constitution,  was  born  free/’ — 
Kent's  Commentary , p.  252. 

“ In  Massachusetts,  all  the  negroes  in  the  Commonwealth  were,  by  their 
new  Constitution , liberated  in  a day,  and  none  of  the  ill  consequences 
objected,  followed,  either  to  the  Commonwealth  or  to  individuals.” — Appen- 
dix, by  Dr.  Edwards,  to  his  Sermon  against  Slavery,  Sept.  15,  1791. 

In  giving  the  opinion  of  the  Court  in  the  case  of  the  Com- 
monwealth versus  Thomas  Aves,  in  1833,  Chief  Justice  Shaw 
said  : — 

“ How,  or  by  what  act  particularly,  slavery  was  abolished  in  Massachu- 
setts, whether  by  the  adoption  of  the  opinion  in  Somerset's  case,  as  a decla- 
ration and  modification  of  the  Common  Law,  or  by  the  Declaration  of 
Independence,  or  by  the  [State]  Constitution  of  1780,  it  is  not  now  very 
easy  to  determine,  and  it  is  a matter  rather  of  curiosity  than  utility,  it  being 
agreed  on  all  hands  that,  if  not  abolished  before,  it  was  so  by  the  declara- 
tion of  rights.”  * * * “ Without  pursuing  this  inquiry  further,  it  is 

sufficient  for  the  purpose  of  the  case  before  us,  that  by  the  Constitution 
adopted  in  1780,  slavery  was  abolished  in  Massachusetts,  upon  the  ground 
that  it  is  contrary  to  natural  right  and  the  plain  principles  of  justice. 
The  terms  of  the  first  article  of  the  Declaration  of  Rights  are  clear  and 
explicit.  ‘ All  men  are  born  free  and  equal,  and  have  certain  natural,  essen- 
tial, and  inalienable  rights,  which  are  the  right  of  enjoying  and  defending 
their  lives  and  liberties,  that  of  acquiring,  possessing,  and  protecting  pro- 
perty.’— It  would  be  difficult  to  select  words  more  precisely  adapted  to  the 
abolition  of  slavery.” — Pickering's  Reports,  pp.  209-10. 

The  suggestion  -of  Chief  Justice  Show,  that  slavery  may 
have  been  abolished  in  Massachusetts  by  the  National  Declara- 
tion of  Independence,  may  be  startling  to  some  readers,  but 
the  similarity,  not  to  say  identity  of  that  declaration  with  the 
article  in  the  Massachusetts  Constitution,  and  the  coincidence 
of  both  with  the  well  known  powers  of  the  Common  Law,  as 
applied  and  exemplified  “in  Somerset’s  case,”  may  induce  the 
inquiry  whether  or  how  either  one  of  the  three  “ acts  ” speci- 
fied by  Judge  Shaw  could  have  had  power  to  abolish  slaveiy, 
unless  either  of  the  others  possessed  likewise  the  same  power? 


112 


GKEAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


The  answer  to  this  query  seems  suggested  by  the  intimation 
of  Judge  Shaw,  that  “it  is  matter  rather  of  curiosity  than 
utility  ” to  fix  upon  a selection  of  the  implements  or  “ acts  ” 
of  freedom.* 

The  first  Federal  Census,  1790,  contains  no  enumeration  of 
slaves  in  Massachusetts. 

In  Pennsylvania  a law  was  passed  the  first  of  March,  1780, 
declaring  all  persons  born  in  the  State  after  that  day,  to  be 
free  at  the  age  of  twenty-eight  years.  Penalty  seventj^-five 
pounds  for  carrying  a slave  beyond  the  limits  of  the  State. f 

The  first  section  of  this  act,  of  the  nature  of  a preamble, 
recapitulates  the  condition  into  which  the  colonies  were  ex- 
pected to  be  reduced  by  the  tyranny  of  Great  Britain,  the 
grateful  sense  due  for  so  great  a providential  deliverance,  and 
the  corresponding  obligation  and  privilege  of  extending  the 
blessings  of  freedom  to  others.  The  second  section  brings 
directly  -into  view  the  condition  of  the  negro  slaves,  and  the 
demands  of  justice  on  their  behalf,  and  then  proceeds  to  the 
enactment  above  described. 

There  Avere  those,  it  would  seem,  who  Avere  not  satisfied 


* Since  writing  the  above,  the  following  item  reaches  us  through  a new  work  of 
Mr.  Spooner — “ A Defence  for  Fugitive  Slaves.”  AVe  deem  it  altogether  too  impor- 
tant to  be  omitted  here: 

“As  early  as  1770,  and  two  years  previous  to  the  decision  of  Somerset’s  case,  so 
famous  in  England,  the  right  of  a master  to  hold  a slave  had  been  denied  by  the 
Superior  Court  of  Massachusetts,  and  upon  the  same  grounds , substantially,  as  those 
upon  which  Lord  Mansfield  discharged  Somerset,  when  his  case  came  before  him.  The 
ease  here  alluded  to  was  James  vs.  Lechmere,  brought  by  the  plaintiff,  a negro, 
against  his  master,  to  recover  his  freedom.” — Washburn's  Judicial  History  of  Mas- 
sachusetts, p.  202. 

That  slaves  should  have  been  held  in  Massachusetts  after  this  decision,  that  a were 
judicial  decision  should  have  been  needed  after  the  Revolution,  and  that  Chief  Jus- 
tice Shaw,  in  1833,  should  have  been  at  a loss  to  fix,  with  precision,  the  earliest  date 
and  the  grounds  of  the  previous  decisions,  are  very  remarkable  circumstances,  all 
tending  to  illustrate  the  facility  with  which  the  practice  of  slaveholding  has  been 
continued,  contrarjj  to  law,  and  the  inattention  of  learned  jurists  to  the  facts  as  well 
as  the  law,  on  the  subject. 

The  case  mentioned  by  Washburn  confirms  very  strongly  the'impression  that 
slavery  was  as  illegal  in  the  Colonies,  before  the  Revolution,  ns  it  is  known  and 
admitted  to  have  been  in  England. 

f Genius  of  Temperance,  Sept.  19,  1833,  copied  from  Emancipator. 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


113 


with,  this  partial  and  tardy  justice.  “ Petitions  in  favor  of  the 
oppressed  Africans”  were  again  presented  to  the  Legislature 
in  1798,  and  a committee  made  a favorable  report,  March  8. 
They  intimated  that  if  the  Bill  of  Rights,  the  Declaration  of 
Independence,  and  the  paternal  character  and  overruling 
providence  of  a common  Creator,  were  to  be  recognized,  “the 
petitioners  but  speak  the  divine  will,  in  requesting  that  this 
evil  be  done  away  from  the  land."* 

Of  the  specific  points  of  this  petition,  and  of  the  legislative 
action  had  on  it,  we  are  not  informed.  The  United  States 
census  for  Pennsylvania,  in  1790,  exhibits  3,737  slaves,  and 
in  1840,  sixty  four. 

It  deserves  notice  that  the  efforts  of  that  period  had  refer- 
ence to  the  removal  of  slavery  “from  the  land,’7  and  not 
merely  from  particular  portions  of  it. 

In  New  Hampshire,  slavery  was  said  to  have  been  abolished, 
b}r  constitutional  declarations  of  rights,  similar  to  those  of 
Massachusetts,  adopted  in  1783,  and  taking  effect  in  June, 
1784.  And  yet,  singularly  enough,  the  census  of  1790  shows 
158  slaves  in  New  Hampshire,  and  even  that  of  1840  gives 
one ! By  what  tenure,  and  under  what  circumstances  or  pre- 
texts slaves  are  held  in  New  Hampshire,  we  are  not  informed. 
State  Constitutions,  it  seems,  as  well  as  National  Declarations, 
may  be  violated  in  practice,  but  the  legality  of  such  practices 
presents  another  question — the  same  that  was  agitated  by 
Granville  Sharp  in  Great  Britain. 

Rhode  Island,  the  very  seat  of  the  African  Slave  Trade;, 
was  the  seat  also  of  early  efforts  in  favor  of  freedom.  The 
exact  date,  or  the  precise  form  of  the  earliest  legislative  move- 
ments are  not  before  us,  but  a note  of  Dr.  Hopkins  to  his- 
Dialogue,  in  1776,  mentions  a proposed  act,  prohibiting  the- 
importation  of  negroes  into  this  colony,  and  asserting  the 
rights  of  freedom  of  all  those  hereafter  born  or  manumitted 
within  the  same.’7  He  gives  the  preamble  to  this  proposed 
act  in  the  following  words  : 


* Statutes  of  Pennsylvania,  vide  National  Era,  Aug.  22,  1850. 
8 


114 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


“Whereas,  the  inhabitants  of  America  are  generally  engaged  in  the 
preservation  of  their  own  rights  and  liberties,  among  which  those  of  per- 
sonal freedom  must  be  considered  as  the  greatest ; and,  as  those  who  are  1 
desirous  of  enjoying  all  the  advantages  of  liberty  themselves  should  be 
willing  to  extend  personal  liberty  to  others,  therefore,  be  it  enacted,”  &e. 

“Is  it  possible,”  exclaims  Hopkins,  “that  anyone  should 
not  feel  the  irresistible  force  of  this  reason?”  In  a note  to 
the  second  edition,  in  1785,  he  adds: 

“ Since  the  above  was  published,  the  General  Assembly  of  that  State 
have  made  a law,  that  all  the  blacks  born  in  it  after  March,  1781,  are  made 
free.  And  the  masters  who  have  slaves  under  forty  years  old,  are  autho- 
rized to  free  them,  without  being  bound  to  support  them  if  afterwards  they 
should  be  unable  to  support  themselves.” 

The  census  of  1790  reports  952  slaves  in  Rhode  Island,  and 
in  1840,  five. 

In  Connecticut,  a law  providing  for  the  gradual  abolition 
of  slavery  was  enacted  in  1784.  In  1790,  the  number  of 
slaves  in  that  State  was  2,759;  in  1840,  there  were  only  sev- 
enteen. 

In  New  York,  “ in  1799,  an  act  of  gradual  emancipation  ^ 
was  passed,  declaring  all  children  born  thereafter  to  be  free, 
males  when  coming  to  the  age  of  twenty-eight,  and  females  at 
twenty-five.  A fine  of  two  hundred  and  fifty  dollars  was  the 
penalty,  and  the  freedom  of  the  slave  was  the  result  of  an 
attempt  to  sell  him  out  of  the  State.  Although  masters  were 
allowed  to  travel  with  their  slaves,  yet  under  severe  fines 
they  were  obliged  to  return  them;  or,  under  oath,  to  make 
proof  that  unavoidable  accident  prevented  the  returning. 

“ In  1817  another  act  was  passed,  declaring  all  slaves  to  be 
free  in  1827,  and  on  July  4th  of  that  year  the  act  took  effect, 
and  every  slave,  nearly  ten  thousand,  Avas  manumitted  without 
compensation  to  their  owners .”* 

And  yet,  from  some  cause,  the  census  for  1840  reports  four 
slaves  in  the  State  of  New  York.  In  1790  there  were  21,324, 
being  nearly  three-fourths  as  many  as  there  were  in  Georgia 


* H.  W.  Beecher,  Kew  York  Tribune , June  1,  1S50. 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


115 


at  that  time,  nearly  twice  as  many  as  there  were  then  in  Ken- 
: tucky,  and  more  than  six  times  as  many  as  there  Avere  in  Ten- 
nessee ! The  proportion,  when  the  Federal  Constitution  was 
adopted  a year  or  two  previous,  could  not  have  greatly  varied, 
throAving  New  York,  at  that  time,  and  for  several  years  after- 
wards, somewhat  conspicuousl}r,  into  the  ranks  of  the  Slave 
States.  Even  down  to  1800  there  Avere  20,343  slaAres,  the 
number  haATing  decreased  but  881  in  ten  years. 

New  Jersey  took  measures,  in  1804,  for  the  prospective 
abolition  of  slavery,  but  the  process  must  have  been  a tardy 
one.  In  1790  the  number  of  slaA'es  Avas  11,423.  In  1840,  it 
Avas  674. 

In  1820  an  act  Avas  passed  emancipating  all  slaves  born 
after  1805  at  the  age  of  twenty-five  years,  and  imposing  a fine 
of  one  hundred  dollars  and  imprisonment  for  transporting 
slaves  beyond  the  limits  of  the  State,  except  slaves  of  full  age 
who  freely  consented  to  go,  before  a judge  of  one  of  the  courts 
in  private. — Statutes  of  New  Jersey,  Congress  Library.  National 
Era , August  22,  1850. 

In  April,  1846,  a law  Avas  passed  and  approved,  ostensibly 
abolishing  slavery,  and  declaring  that  every  person  then  held 
in  slavery  Avas  free , subject,  ho\vreA'er,  to  certain  restrictions, 
Avhich  retain  the  same  persons  under  the  control  of  their  mas- 
ters, for  an  indefinite  period , as  apprentices.  They  are  to  “ serve 
until  discharged f and  the  master  is  permitted  “to  discharge 
them  by  a writing  executed  in  the  presence  of  at  least  one 
witness,  provided  the  apprentice  be  of  sound  mind,  and  capa- 
ble of  procuring  a livelihood,  and  upon  certificate  of  the  over- 
seers of  the  poor  and  tAvo  justices  of  the  peace,  to  such  capa- 
city,” &c.,  &c.  Such  is  the  definition  of  freedom,  and  of  the 
abolition  of  slavery,  in  NeAV  Jersey  ! — MSS.  by  Gov.  Haines. 

The  census  of  1840  records  3 slaves  in  Ohio,  3 in  Indiana, 
331  in  Illinois,  11  in  Wisconsin,  and  16  in  Iowa.  The  only  - 
States,  at  that  time,  without  slaves,  were  Massachusetts,  Maine, 
Vermont,  and  Michigan.  A short  list  of  really  non-slave- 
holding States ! 

In  the  States  now  commonly  denominated  non-sla\reholding, 


116 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


there  were,  in  1776,  by  computation,  46,099  slaves.  In  1790 
there  were,  by  census,  40,370.  In  1840,  there  were  1,129. 

This  decrease,  though  chiefly  the  effect  of  legislative  and 
judical  action,  was  not  wholly  so.  By  voluntary  manumis- 
sions, the  slave  population  must  have  been  very  essentially 
diminished.  Particularly  must  this  have  been  the  case  in 
Rhode  Island,  where  the  dimunition  between  1776  and  1790, 
an  interval  of  only  fourteen  years,  was  from  4,370  to  932, 
since  the  law  of  1784  liberating  only  those  who  were  born 
after  that  time,  could  have  operated  only  to  a very  limited 
extent,  in  checking  the  increase  of  slave  population.  In 
Pennsylvania,  too,  where  legislation  had  only  liberated  those 
born  after  1780,  we  find  the  decrease  of  slaves  between  the 
years  1776  and  1790,  to  have  been  from  10,000  to  3,737. 
Church  action,  rather  than  legislative  or  judicial,  is  to  be 
credited  with  these  manumissions  in  Pennsylvania  and  Rhode 
Island. 

It  is  somewhat  remarkable  that  South  Carolina,  between 
1776  and  1790,  exhibits  a decrease  of  slave  population,  from 
110,000  to  107,094,  while  the  slaves  of  New  York,  in  the 
same  time,  increased  from  15,000  to  21,324.  But  the  num- 
ber of  slaves  in  S.  Carolina  had  increased,  in  1840,  to 
327,088. 

The  increase  of  slavery  in  the  Southern  States,  presents  a 
striking  contrast  to  the  decrease  in  the  Northern  and  Eastern 
States.  In  1776  the  number  of  slaves  in  these  is  computed  at 
456,000.  In  1790,  by  census,  it  was,  567,527.  In  1840,  it 
was  2,486,126,  including  the  District  of  Columbia. 

Thus,  while  in  one  part  of  the  country,  the  slave  population 
increased  from  less  than  half  a million  to  nearly  two  and  a 
half  millions,  in  another  part  of  the  country  it  was  diminished 
from  above  46,000  to  a little  more  than  1,100. 

„ This  diminution,  whether  in  the  form  of  voluntary  manu- 
missions, or  in  consequence  of  legislative  or  judicial  action, 
may  be  traced,  almost  entirely,  to  the  moral,  religious  and 
political  influences,  exhibited  in  this  and  the  preceding 
chapters.  But  for  these,  the  eastern,  middle,  and  north-western 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


117 


States — in  despite  of  all  that  has  been  said  of  soil  and  climate 
— would  probably  have  been  overspread  with  the  foul  stain 
and  the  blighting  curse  of  slaveholding.  It  was  the  prevail- 
ing moral  sentiment  of  the  North  that  led  to  the  abolition  of 
slavery  there.  This  is  manifest  from  the  fact  that  the  eman- 
cipated slaves  and  their  children,  are  for  the  most  part,  still  to 
be  found  at  the  North.  They  were  not,  in  anticipation  of 
emancipation  acts,  exported  to  other  States,  to  any  observable 
extent. 

When,  in  1827,  ten  thousand  slaves  were,  in  one  day,  set 
free,  in  the  State  of  New  York,  they  remained  on  the  soil, 
and  it  is  not  known  that  a single  slave  had  been  sold  into 
another  State,  m anticipation  of  that  long  expected  event. 
Transportation  has  never  been  made,  in  these  States,  a condi- 
tion of  freedom ; nor,  until  after  the  organization  of  the 
Colonization  Society,  was  their  removal  sought  as  an  advantage 
to  the  communities  in  which  they  resided. 


118 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


CHAPTER  XI. 

DECLINE  OF  THE  SPIRIT  OF  LIBERTY,  AND  GROWTH  OF  SLAVERY, 
SINCE  THE  REVOLUTION — THEIR  CAUSES  AND  EARLY  MANI- 
FESTATIONS. 

Importance  of  tracing  disastrous  social  changes  to  their  m'oral  causes — Promises 
made  in  adversity  forgotten  in  prosperity — View  of  Dr.  Hopkins — A humiliating 
fact — Partial  revival  of  the  Slave  Trade— Fallacy  of  expecting  to  abolish  the  traffic  I I 
during  the  existence  of  Slavery— The  strategy  of  postponement — General  decline 
of  Religion  and  Morals — Disbanding  of  the  Army — Habits  of  idleness,  and  ten- 
dency to  Piracy  and  Slave  Trade— Relaxation  of  vigilance — Decline  of  public 
spirit — Vicissitudes  of  poverty  and  returning  wealth — Concentration  and  control 
of  capital — Anti-Dcmocratic  Conservatism,  aud  semi-infidel  French  Democracy — 
The  two  rival  parties — Misunderstood  “horrors  of  St.  Domingo” — Unforeseen!  I 
profitableness  of  cotton-growing — Unequal  apportionment  of  representation — 
Declining  standard  of  morals  in  the  Church — Rivalry  of  the  Sects — Growing  pre- ' | 
judice  against  color — Influence  of  the  Colonization  project — Fatal  fostering  of 
this  prejudice — corroborated  by  estimate  of  Ilenry  Clay. 

The  study  of  history  is  like  a journey,  or  an  exploring  tour, 
in  tlie  course  of  which,  cheering  prospects  are  sometimes 
unexpectedly  succeeded  by  scenes  less  promising,  but  | 
necessary  to  be  traversed,  or  the  proposed  end  is  not  reached.  ! 
If  we  would  faithfully  explore  a country,  we  must  not  con-  I 
fine  our  attention  to  the  pleasant  portions  of  it.  If  we 
would  improve  it,  we  must  acquaint  ourselves  with  the 
unseemly  features  and  untoward  influences  to  be  removed 
or  remedied.  If  fields  once  fertile  are  becoming  sterile, 
we  must  learn  under  what  modes  of  tillage  they  have  become 
so.  If  the  buildings  just  erected  and  yet  unfinished,  are 
beginning  to  crumble,  we  must  inquire  after  the  nature  of  the 
materials,  and  the  process  of  the  structure. 

The  marked  decline  of  the  spirit  of  liberty  in  this  country 
for  half  a century  after  the  Revolution,  is  a fact  too  palpable 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


119 


to  escape  notice.  Between  the  historical  details  of  the  last 
three  chapters,  and  those  that  must  appear  in  the  following, 
there  will  be  found,  we  fear,  a chasm  too  wide  and  abrupt  to 
comport  with  the  ordinary  vicissitudes  of  credible  history. 
To  the  reader,  of  another  country,  or  a future  age,  we  shall 
appear  to  have  been  writing  fiction,  and  even  the  verity  of  the 
public  documents  cited,  will  scarcely  escape  suspicion.  But 
“truth  is  stranger  than  fiction.”  The  details  to  be  presented 
will  appear  credible  enough  when  we  shall  have  become  con- 
versant with  the  moral  causes  at  work  beforehand,  adapted  to 
the  production  of  them.  To  the  reader  who  never  stops  to 
inquire  after  moral  causes,  or  who  reads  on,  without  keeping 
them  steadily  in  mind,  the  perusal  of  history  can  be  of  little 
value.  It  can  supply  him  with  no  guide  to  the  future,  no 
element  of  congruity  for  the  past.  Such  causes  constitute,  in 
reality,  the  most  essential  ingredient  of  true  history.  They 
are  facts,  at  wholesale,  fountains  of  facts,  from  whence  all 
minor  facts  flow.  We  make  no  digression,  then,  in  stating 
them.  We  cannot  promise  a complete  enumeration  of  all 
these  causes.  We  may  not  be  able,  always,  to  distinguish 
causes  from  effects,  nor  to  designate  the  precise  point,  in  the 
history,  where  the  defection  began,  nor  decide  positively  what 
portion  of  the  body  politic  was  first  corrupted,  or  first  became 
corrupting.  But  we  can  note  down  a few  general  facts. 

1.  We  shall  first  venture  to  suggest,  that  the  regard  for 
human  liberty,  and  the  opposition  to  the  slave  trade  and 
slavery,  that  were  manifested  during  the  revolutionary  period, 
may  have  failed  to  prove  permanent  and  abiding,  because,  in 
respect  to  great  numbers  of  the  people,  including  some  promi- 
nent citizens,  those  sentiments  were  not  as  deep  seated  and  as 
disinterested  as  they  should  have  been,  and  therefore  a change 
in  the  aspect  of  public  affairs  would  naturally  bring  with  it  a 
change  in  the  manifestation  of  such  sentiments.  To  suppose 
otherwise  would  be  to  suppose  an  unprecedented  purity  of 
purpose,  of  which  no  other  nation  has  yet  furnished  a parallel. 
This  suggestion  does  not  discredit  the  fact  of  an  actual  declen- 
sion. It  only  indicates  one  of  the  causes  of  it.  Without  any 


120 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


previous  tendency  to  declension,  other  causes  would  have  had 
little  power. 

It  is  easy  to  see,  that,  in  many  ways,  the  revolutionary  pe- 
riod presented  peculiar  inducements  to  the  abolition  of  the 
slave  trade  and  slavery.  To  fight  for  their  own  liberties  while 
enslaving  others,  was  an  incongruity  too  glaring  to  consist 
with  national  reputation,  or  with  intelligent  self-respect.  Like 
all  other  men,  in  times  of  pressing  danger  and  sore  calamity, 
our  fathers  might  make  solemn  promises  of  amendment,  which 
would  be  liable  to  be  forgotten  and  disregarded,  on  the  return  of 
security  and  peace.  The  fear  of  an  insurrection  of  the  slaves, 
or  of  their  desertion  to  the  enemy,  in  time  of  war,  might  pre- 
sent an  argument  in  favor  of  their  emancipation,  that  would 
influence  many  minds,  until  the  danger  had  passed  away. 
Such,  indeed,  was  the  fact.  A note  of  Dr.  Hopkins  to  his 
Dialogue,  in  1776,  will  place  this  fact  in  a clear  and  impres- 
sive light. 

“ God  is  so  ordering  it,  in  his  providence,  that  st  seems  absolutely  neces- 
sary that  something  should  speedily  be  done  in  respect  to  the  slaves  among 
us,  in  order  to  our  safety,  and  to  prevent  their  turning  against  us,  in  our 
present  struggle,  in  order  to  get  their  liberty.  Our  oppressors  have 
planned  to  gain  the  blacks,  and  induce  them  to  take  up  arms  against  us,  by 
promising  them  liberty  on  this  condition  ; and  this  plan  they  are  prose- 
cuting to  the  utmost  of  their  power,  by  which  means  they  have  persuaded 
numbers  to  join  them.  And  should  we  attempt  to  restrain  them  by  force 
and  severity,  keeping  a strict  guard  over  them,  and  punishing  those  severely 
who  shall  be  detected  in  attempting  to  join  our  opposers,  this  will  be  only 
making  bad  worse,  and  serve  to  render  our  inconsistency  and  cruelty  more 
criminal,  perspicuous,  and  shocking,  and  bring  down  the  righteous  ven- 
geance of  heaven  on  our  heads.  The  only  way  pointed  out  to  prevent  this 
threatening  evil,  is  to  set  the  blacks  at  liberty  ourselves,  by  some  public  act 
and  laws,  and  then  give  them  encouragement  to  labor,  or  take  up  arms  in 
defence  of  the  American  cause,  as  they  shall  choose.  This  would,  at  once, 
be  doing  them  some  degree  of  justice,  and  defeating  our  enemies  in  the 
scheme  they  are  prosecuting.” 

This  wise  and  righteous  counsel  was  not  followed,  but  it  is 
impossible  to  tell  how  extensively  the  slaves  were  kept  quiet, 
by  the  public  testimonies  made  in  favor  of  their  freedom,  and 
by  the  hopes  thus  inspired. 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


121 


In  his  Dialogue,  Dr.  Hopkins  had  insisted  so  strongly  on 
the  tokens  of  divine  displeasure  hanging  over  the  nation,  on 
account  of  this  crying  sin,  that  on  the  re-publication  of  the 
work,  after  the  return  of  peace,  he  thought  it  necessary,  in  an 
Appendix,  to  notice  the  objection,  that  if  slavery  were  so 
great  a national  sin,  as  had  been  represented,  Divine  Provi- 
dence would  not  have  favored  the  cause  of  America ; and 
therefore,  the  representations  that  had  been  made  of  the  dan- 
ger of  defeat,  in  consequence  of  this  wickedness  and  incon- 
sistency, had  been  unfounded  and  rash.  One  answer  of  Dr. 
Hopkins  to  this  objection,  was,  that  “ since  the  publication  of 
this  dialogue,  many  things  have  been  done  and  steps  taken, 
towards  a reformation  of  this  evil  ” — proceeding  to  enumerate, 
(as  we  have  before  quoted,)  the  States  that  had  either  abol- 
ished slavery  or  taken  measures  in  that  direction.  He  adds, 
that  if  these  hopeful  beginnings,  commenced  in  times  of  afflic- 
tion, were  not  followed  up  and  completed  in  prosperity,  we 
may  expect  divine  judgments,  still.  And  here,  he  quotes  as 
applicable  to  this  country,  in  such  a case,  that  remarkable 
passage  in  the  prophecy  of  Jeremiah,  Chapter  35,  where  it  is 
recorded  that  the  king  and  princes  of  Judah,  in  a time  of 
sies;e  and  distress  entered  into  a solemn  “resolution  and  cove- 
nant  to  free  all  their  slaves” — but  “when  their  fears  and 
distress  were  removed,  they  returned  to  their  former  practice,” 
— for  which  God  commissioned  Jeremiah  to  tell  them  that 
since  they  had  “ refused  liberty  to  their  brethren,  he  would 
proclaim  a liberty  for  them,  even  a most  dreadful  liberty  to 
the  sword,  to  the  pestilence,  and  to  the  famine,  and  cause 
them  to  be  removed  into  all  the  kingdoms  of  the  earth,”  &c. 

The  contrast  between  Hopkins  and  some  of  his  successors, 
in  the  same  religious  denomination  in  New  England,  who 
have  recently  applauded  the  efforts  of  our  most  recreant  poli- 
ticians to  draw,  still  closer,  the  fetters  of  the  enslaved,  and  to 
punish  those  who  shelter  the  outcasts,  is  too  palpable  and 
glaring  to  escape  observation  : and  the  question  forces  itself 
upon  our  attention,  notwithstanding  their  technical  agreement 
in  creeds  and  forms,  whether  teachers  so  opposite  in  their 


122 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


practical  expositions,  should  be  regarded  as  teaching,  in 
reality,  the  same  religion,  and  serving  the  same  Master. 

It  is  in  the  same  connection,  in  that  Appendix,  that  Dr. 
Hopkins  notices  the  pecuniary  troubles  and  distresses  that 
still,  at  that  time,  (1785)  embarrassed  the  country,  and  threat- 
ened its  ruin,  in  evidence  that  the  danger  of  divine  judgments 
had  not  yet  disappeared.  And  as  a reason  for  fearing  yet 
greater  judgments,  he  proceeds  to  mention,  what  belongs  to 
this  portion  of  our  history,  as  an  important,  but  painfully  hu- 
miliating fact.  Though  the  General  Congress  and  the  Colonies 
or  States  had  solemnly  covenanted  to  discontinue  the  slave  traf- 
fic, and  had  interdicted  it,  yet,  by  prominent  and  wealthy  indi- 
viduals, it  was  now  beginning,  on  the  return  of  peace,  to  be 
revived,  and  was  not  effectually  suppressed  by  the  authorities. 
We  will  state  this  in  the  words  of  that  celebrated  author. 

“ We  are  again  going  into  the  practice  of  that  seven-fold  abomination, 
the  slave  trade,  against  which,  in  the  beginning  of  the  war,  we  bore  public 
testimony,  and  entered  into  a united  and  solemn  resolution  wholly  to  re- 
nounce it,  and  all  connection  with  those  who  should  persist  in  this  evil 
practice.  A number  of  vessels  have  been  sent  from  some  of  the  States  in 
New  England,  and  other  States,  to  Africa,  to  procure  slaves,  and  they  are 
in  such  demand  in  the  West  Indies,  and  in  some  of  the  Southern  States,  and 
especially  South  Carolina,  that  several  successful  voyages  have  been  made, 
thousands  of  slaves  brought  into  these  United  States,  and  sold  at  extraor- 
dinary prices,  by  which  others  are  tempted  and  encouraged  to  go  into  this 
trade,  and  there  is  a prospect  that  it  will  take  place  to  as  great  a degree  as 
it  has  heretofore,  unless  it  should  be  suppressed  by  those  in  public  authority, 
or  by  the  people  at  large.” 

The  precise  extent  to  which  this  infamous  traffic  was  re- 
sumed, cannot  now  be  ascertained.  But  there  is  reason  to 
think  it  was  quite  limited,  until  (as  before  stated)  it  was  al- 
lowed by  South  Carolina,  in  1808. 

2.  The  experiment  of  putting  a stop  to  the  slave  trade 
during  the  existence  of  slavery — and  the  policy  of  attempting 
to  abolish  either  the  one.  or  the  other,  or  both  of  them,  by  the 
mere  force  of  moral  suasion,  without  corresponding  and  ade- 
quate political  action,  was  fully  tried  by  the  philanthropists 
and  patriots  of  the  revolutionary  period,  and  with  a result 


SLAVERY  AISTD  FREEDOM. 


123 


that  should  prove  a caution  to  all  their  successors  who  may 
be  engaged  in  the  cause  of  human  freedom.  To  maintain 
penal  laws  against  any  other  forms  of  crime,  and  permit  this 
crime  of  crimes  to  go  “ unwhipt  of  justice,”  is  a solecism  in 
legislation,  in  jurisprudence,  and  in  civil  polity,  without  a 
parallel  for  inconsistency  and  folly.  This  capital  error  we  put 
down  as  one  of  the  leading  causes  or  outstanding  signs  of  the 
lamentable  defection  of  this  nation  from  the  principles  of  civil 
government  they  had  marked  out  for  themselves,  in  their 
declaration  of  human  rights,  and  their  definition  of  the  ob- 
jects and  characteristics  of  a legitimate  and  just  civil  govern- 
ment. 

3.  “ The  ruse  of  gradualism  ” — the  strategy  of  delay — the 
contamination  of  temporary  compromise,  was  another  kindred 
error,  (if  it  may  be  called  another)  and  the  same  with  which 
the  friends  of  liberty  have  been  frequently  beset,  and  some- 
times foiled,  in  their  more  recent  as  well  as  more  early  en- 
deavors. 

4.  The  general  decline  of  pure  religion  and  sound  morality, 
after  the  close  of  the  revolutionary  struggle,  another  fact  com- 
monly noticed  by  the  better  portion  of  the  community  at  that 
period,  was  almost  certain  to  include  in  it  a decline  of  the 
spirit  of  liberty,  of  a tender  regard  for  human  rights,  and  of 
sensibility  to  the  flagrant  iniquities  of  the  slave  trade  and 
slavery. 

Though  the  war  of  the  Revolution  contributed,  in  many 
respects,  and  with  the  better  portion  of  society,  to  foster  the 
spirit  of  freedom ; yet,  like  other  wars,  it  had  its  demoralizing 
tendencies,  and  the  disbanding  of  the  army  was  the  occasion 
for  the  development  of  them.  Not  a few  of  the  soldiers,  and 
some  of  the  officers,  had  contracted  a distaste  for  the  habits 
of  sober  and  patient  industry,  in  which  they  had,  in  earlier 
life,  been  educated ; and,  to  a frightful  extent,  the  spirit  of 
lawlessness  and  licentiousness  had  been  mistaken  for  the  spirit 
of  freedom.  The  spirit  of  gambling  adventure,  amid  the 
pecuniary  fluctuations  of  that  period,  and  the  depreciation  of 
the  continental  paper  currency,  contributed  its  share  to  pro- 


124 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


duce  the  recklessness,  unscrupulousness,  and  hap-hazard  ad- 
venture for  which  a considerable  portion  of  that  generation 
were  distinguished.  The  anti-slavery  writings  of  a Hopkins 
and  an  Edwards  can  hardly  be  supposed  to  have  had  much 
effect  upon  this  class  of  society,  who  had  learned  to  cast  off 
their  respect  for  moral  and  religious  instructions  and  restraints 
in  general.  The  rapid  inroads  of  intemperance,  profanity, 
and  irreligion,  were  among  the  marked  features  of  that  period, 
even  in  New  England,  as  we  learn  from  the  testimonies  of 
such  writers  as  Emmons.  The  class  of  the  community  just 
alluded  to,  were  ripe  for  any  unlawful  enterprise  rather  than 
for  patient,  quiet  rural  labor.  The  slave  trade,  as  well  as 
other  forms  of  piracy,  was  not  lacking  for  men  of  this  class 
to  man  its  vessels,  and  even  to  take  charge  of  them,  as  super- 
cargoes and  captains.  And  in  how  many  ways  the  character- 
istics of  such  an  age  would  tend  to  strengthen  and  perpetuate 
slavery,  we  need  not  stop  to  describe. 

5.  A general  decline  of  the  spirit  of  liberty  succeeded  to 
the  exhausting  struggles  of  the  Revolution,  almost  by  a law  of 
the  human  mind,  if  we  may  adventure  to  say  so,  a process  in 
human  affairs  very  difficult  to  be  counteracted,  except  by  the 
most  resolute  and  disinterested  exertions.  The  one  idea  of 
national  independence,  which  had  come  to  stand  as  the  syno- 
nym of  the  idea  of  freedom,  had  so  long  held  the  mind  of  the 
nation  in  an  agony  of  attention  and  suspense,  that  when  the 
struggle  was  over,  and  the  national  independence  acknow- 
ledged, it  was  taken  for  granted  that  the  liberties  of  the  nation 
were  secured.  Even  with  the  most  philosophical  and  philan- 
thropic, a vague,  indefinite,  and  ill-conceived  impression  of 
the  “ spirit  of  the  age  ” as  it  is  called,  that  was  to  carry  every- 
body onward  and  upward  to  the  dignity  of  freemen,  without 
the  exhausting  cares,  anxieties,  and  solicitudes  of  those  who 
had  almost  worn  themselves  out  in  the  long  struggle,  had 
operated  as  a welcome  furlough,  or  discharge  from  service. 
When  the  army  and  the  commander-in-chief  were  permitted 
to  retire  from  the  public  defence,  why  should  not  they  ? The 
human  mind,  so  long  and  so  intensely  kept  on  the  stretch, 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


125 


sought  repose,  and,  unhappily,  in  this  case,  before  the  giant 
despotism  of  the  age  had  been  vanquished.  Even  the  strong- 
minded  and  the  keen-sighted  failed  to  perceive  this!  How 
much*  more  the  masses  of  the  people,  whose  vigilance  and 
combined  efforts  were  then  needed?  Withdrawing  their 
attention  too  much  from  public  affairs,  they  expended  their 
strength  on  their  own  personal  and  domestic  concerns,  that 
now  needed  unusual  care,  after  a season  of  comparative  neg- 
lect. A people  impoverished  by  a seven  years’  war,  Avere 
now  to  replenish  their  exhausted  stores,  and  pay  off  their 
public  and  private  debts,  at  a time  when  the  proportion  of 
producers  had  been  diminished,  first  by  the  demands  of  the 
war,  and  next,  by  the  flood  of  idlers,  or  \\rorse  than  idlers, 
Avhich  had  come  with  the  return  of  peace.  IIow  easily  would 
most  men  excuse  themselves  from  anti-slavery  agitation  at 
such  a period,  to  say  nothing  of  an  unwillingness  to  hazard, 
afresh,  at  the  close  of  a civil  war,  the  amicable  relations  that 
remained.  In  all  this  we  see  a cause,  not  an  adequate  excuse, 
for  the  general  apathy  that  succeeded  to  the  revolutionary 
struggle.  The  lesson  for  our  instruction  is,  the  importance  of 
neArer  relinquishing  a contest  for  freedom,  till  it  is  thoroughly 
secured,  or  of  never  yielding  a moral  controversy  till  it  is 
settled  on  the  right  basis. 

6.  When  the  private  and  the  public  purse  were  replenished, 
Avhen  prosperity  had  succeeded  to  poverty,  when  Avealth,  at 
the  opening  of  the  present  century,  rolled  in  upon  the  nation, 
the  former  habits  of  disinterested  or  even  of  patriotic  devotion 
to  public  affairs  and  the  interests  of  human  freedom  did  not 
return.  The  pursuit  of  Avealth  had  begotten  the-  inordinate 
love  of  it.  Inattention  to  the  demands  of  liberty  and  j ustice 
had  resulted  in  the  disregard  of  them.  Inequality  of  posses- 
sion, continually  increasing  and  in  striking  contrast  to  earlier 
times,  had  undermined  the  spirit  of  equality,  and  introduced 
aristocratic  tastes.  Humanity  and  human  rights  were  less 
valued  than  Avealth.  The  concentration  of  capital  created  a 
new  element  of  political  power,  and  diverted  it  from  its  former 
channels.  The  possession  of  wealth,  or  of  talents  prostituted 


126 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


to  the  support  of  its  claims,  instead  of  a disinterested  advocacy 
of  human  liberty  and  equal  justice,  supplied  passports  to  seats 
in  the  State  and  National  Councils,  to  places  of  authority  and 
power.  Here  was  another  cause,  and  another  step  in  the 
downward  tendencies  of  the  nation ; the  beginning  of  that 
powerful  aristocracy  of  wealth  that  afterwards  openly  opposed 
the  discussion  of  the  slave  question. 

7.  Earlier  than  this,  and  somewhat  if  not  altogether  dis- 
tinct from  it  in  the  first  place,  though  afterwards  learning  to 
combine  with  it,  and  becoming  at  length  wholly  absorbed  in 
it,  and  obliterated  by  it,  was  a more  elevated  aristocracy,  (not 
using  the  word  in  its  most  odious  sense,)  beginning  to  exhibit 
itself,  almost  immediately  after  the  close  of  the  revolutionary 
struggle.  In  the  effort  to  establish  a national  Constitution,  to 
organize  a new  general  government,  and  to  mark  out  a course 
of  national  policy,  this  element  became  distinctly  visible.  It 
might  be  described  as  the  aristocracy  of  intellect,  combined, 
to  a great  extent,  (though  with  some  marked  exceptions,) 
with  high  moral  worth,  which,  in  the  absence  of  numbers, 
gave  it,  for  a time,  great  weight  and  power.  It  was  not  so 
much,  if  at  all,  an  aristocracy  of  misanthropy  or  of  gross  sel- 
fishness, as  of  conscious  superiority  of  intelligence  and  char-  : 
acter,  and  a distrust  in  the  capacities  of  the  mass  of  the  people 
for  self-government.  With  a goodly  share  of  the  friends  of 
humanity  and  justice  in  its  ranks,  (the  friends  of  the  enslaved,) 
seeking  earnestly  their  future  or  ultimate  freedom,  it  never- 
theless failed  to  yield  its  full  assent  to  those  self-evident  truths 
of  the  Declaration  of  Independence  which  must  lie  at  the 
basis  of  any*  consistent  and  thorough  agitation  for  the  present 
removal  of  slaverjn  If  the  masses  of  the  people  could  not 
safely  be  intrusted  with  the  experiment  of  self-government, 
as  this  class  of  statesmen  seem  to  have  supposed,  it  would 
have  been  the  consummation  of  folly  and  madness  to  have 
set  the  slaves  all  loose,  at  once,  without  any  previous  prepar- 
ation for  freedom.  Even  the  professedly  democratic  portion 
of  our  public  men  were,  by  no  means,  prepared  to  apply  their 
principles  to  the  case  of  the  unlettered  and  uncultivated  negro 


SLAVERY  AXD  FREEDOM. 


127 


population,  though  they  were  willing  to  hazard  the  experi- 
ment with  the  more  favored  and  better  educated  whites. 
Was  it  to  be  expected,  then,  of  those  who  trembled  at  the 
experiment  of  republican  institutions  even  for  the  educated 
yeomanry  of  New  England,  without  the  protecting  shadow  of 
a royal  throne,  or  its  equivalent  in  some  form — those  who 
sought  to  restrict  as  much  as  possible  the  right  of  suffrage, 
making  property  the  evidence  of  qualification  ; those  who 
sought  for  balances  and  checks  against  the  people,  and  the 
placing  of  the  highest  officers  of  government  at  the  greatest 
practicable  distance  from  their  control — was  it  to  be  expected, 
we  demand,  of  such  a school  of  statesmen,  that  they  should 
signalize  themselves  by  demanding  the  immediate  and  uncon- 
ditional emancipation  of  the  enslaved  ? Most  assuredly  it  was 
not.  And  no  such  anomaly  was  witnessed.  Admit  that  they 
embodied  a majority  of  the  most  intelligent,  respectable,  phil- 
anthropic, and  religious  portion  of  the  community,  as  has 
been  plausibly,  and  perhaps  justly,  claimed  for  them — admit 
that  among  their  prominent  men  were  some  of  the  most  pro- 
minent and  worthy  patrons  of  manumission,  and  even  of  aboli- 
tion societies — admit  that  they  favored  the  circulation  of  the 
more  radical  and  truly  democratic  anti-slavery  doctrines  of 
Hopkins  and  Edwards* — it  nevertheless  remains  true  that  no 
prominent  statesman  of  this  class,  (nor  even  of  their  more 
democratic  opponents,)  proposed  an  immediate  and  uncondi- 
tional abolition  of  slaverju  The  democratic  theory  of  human 
rights  and  corresponding  capabilities,  was  not  then  sufficiently 
understood,  to  warrant  such  a movement.  We  mention  this 
as  an  indisputable  and  important  historical  fact — not  for  any 
purposes  of  invidious  reproach.  If  the  best  friends  of  the  en- 
slaved among  our  purest  and  most  prominent  statesmen  were 
not  ready  to  demand  for  them  immediate  justice,  then  their 
continued  enslavement  was  a matter  of  course,  until  the  rise 


^ "We  cannot  say  tliat  Hopkins  and  Edwards  were  not  both  identified,  in  their 
political  influence,  as  most  of  their  clerical  associates  were,  with  the  school  of  poli- 
tics we  have  described.  It  would  be  remarkable  if  they  were  not.  But  their 
writings  on  slavery  are  among  the  most  radically  democratic  of  their  times. 


128 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


and  ascendency  of  the  slave  power  riveted  their  chains.  The 
fact  and  philosophy  of  gradualism,  and  consequent  postpone- 
ment, has,  in  part,  its  historical  elucidation  just  here. 

Fidelity  to  historical  truth  compels  us  to  add,  that  the  class 
of  statesmen  just  described  exerted  a powerful  influence  in 
moulding  the  Federal  Constitution;  that  they  distinguished 
themselves  and  obtained  their  political  name,  as  Federalists,  by 
advocating  its  adoption  ; that  the  administration  of  the  Federal 
Government,  on  its  first  organization,  came  into  their  hands; 
that  they  administered  it  for  the  first  twelve  years,  during 
which  time  the  national  policy  was  gradually  but  substantially 
settled  upon  the  basis  upon  which  it  has  been  administered 
ever  since,*  so  far  as  the  slave  question  is  concerned,  only  that 
the  exorbitant  demands  of  the  slave  power  have  been  con- 
stantly “ growing  with  its  growth,  and  strengthening  with  its 
strength.” 

Impartiality  requires  us  to  notice  these  facts  concerning  the 
Federal  party  while  in  power,  as  the  Democratic  party  so 
called,  is  justly  obnoxious  to  the  charge  of  violating,  even 
more  conspicuously  and  outrageously,  the  free  principles  of 
which  they  boast,  during  their  much  longer  administration  of 
the'  government  in  after  years. 

The  want  of  a thorough,  consistent,  and  Christian  demo- 
cracy, therefore,  is  distinctly  visible  in  the  origin  and  continu- 
ation of  the  pro-slavery  policy  of  the  national  government, 
and  to  this  fact,  as  to  a comprehensive  cause,  the  present 
ascendency  of  the  slave  power  may  be  traced.  Had  the 
“Federalists”  been  more  democratic  in  their  theory  of  civil 
government — had  the  “Democrats”  (or  “Republicans,”  as 
they  were  then  called)  reduced  their  own  theory  to  practice,! 


* Facts,  in  evidence  of  this,  will  be  adduced  in  the  proper  connection  of  the 
history. 

+ Having  never  belonged  to  either  of  those  parties,  nor  voted  more  than  twice  or 
thrice  before  the  formation  of  the  Liberty  party  in  1840,  (though  an  attentive  wit- 
ness of  party  struggles  since  1804,)  the  writer  hoped  to  have  presented  a picture 
which  would  have  been  admitted  by  all  the  intelligent  friends  of  liberty  to  be  a just 
and  impartial  one.  But  on  submitting  his  manuscript  to  the  inspection  of  judicious 
friends,  he  finds  his  mistake.  He  now  makes  up  his  mind  that  some  good  men  of 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


129 


the  system  of  American  slavery  would  have  been  abolished 
at  an  early  period  of  our  history. 

8.  In  close  connection  with  the  preceding  facts,  it  should 
be  noticed  that  the  excesses  of  the  first  French  Revolution, 
commencing  soon  after  our  Federal  Government  went  into 
operation,  must  have  contributed  largely,  as  we  know  it  did, 
to  bring  democratic  principles  into  disrepute,  to  increase  and 
fortify  the  jealousies  and  fears  of  conservatists,  and  confirm 
the  impression  of  insecurity  to  life,  to  property,  and  to  civil 
order,  if  large  masses  of  men  should  at  once  be  released  from 
absolute  control.  If  millions  of  educated  and  polished  French- 
men could  not  be  transferred  at  once  from  a state  of  mere  polit- 
ical servility  to  a state  of  civil  and  political  freedom,  without 
becoming  fired  with  the  frenzy  of  demons,  abjuring  all  the 
restraints  of  religion,  subverting  the  state,  proscribing  the 
church,  engulfing  society  and  property  in  the  wildest  chaos 
of  disorder ; drenching  the  land  with  blood,  and  exterminat- 
ing each  other  by  the  rapid  succession  and  violent  proscrip- 
tion of  rival  factions,  how  could  it  be  thought  safe  or  prudent 
to  release  suddenly  from  a state  of  still  deeper  degradation  a 
more  ignorant  population  of  slaves  ? Thus  it  must  have  been 
that  men  reasoned,  .especially  that  portion  of  them  whose  pre- 
vious jealousy  of  popular  ascendency  had  been  so  unequivo- 
cally manifested,  who  looked  upon  these  trans-atlantic  devel- 
opments with  unmingled  horror,  and  pointed  to  them  as 
evidences  in  confirmation  of  their  predictions.  Even  the 
most  sanguine  and  democratic  among  our  American  statesmen, 
and  those  who  had  most  joyfully  hailed  the  dawn  of  liberty 
in  France,  were  compelled,  though  reluctantly,,  at  length  to 
join  in  the  general  condemnation  of  such  excesses,  and  to  feel 
if  they  could  not  re-echo  the  appeals  now  so  eloquently  made 

opposite  parties  -will  think  him  unjust  to  their  party.  No  course  seems  to  remain 
for  him  but  the  expression  of  his  own  convictions.  He  has  no  desire  nor  temptation 
to  follow  the  had  custom  of  abusing  the  obsolete  Federal  party,  the  representative 
of  a former  age.  A more  honest  and  patriotic  party  never  administered  the  govern- 
ment. "We  have  only  attributed  to  it  a defective  theory,  consistently  followed — a 
less  reprehensible  error  than  that  of  its  opponent,  the  holding  of  a better  theory  in 
abeyance,  for  the  sake  of  pro-slavery  support  and  the  spoils  of  office. 

9 


130 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


concerning  the  dangers  of  such  freedom.  If  a conclusion 
adverse  to  the  sudden  emancipation  of  the  slaves  was  not 
logically  deduced  and  propounded  in  the  form  of  a syllogism, 
the  impression  must  have  been  effectually  made.  The  horrors 
of  the  French  Revolution,  like  the  perverted  story  of  “ the 
horrors  of  St.  Domingo,”*  some  time  afterwards,  have  ever 
since  been  on  the  lips  of  the  conservators  of  slavery.  So  late 
as  the  beginning  of  the  present  anti-slavery  agitation,  in  1833, 
the  “reign  of  terror”  in  France,  and  “the  horrors  of  St. 
Domingo,”  were  successfully  adverted  to  by  opposers ; and 
the  doctrines  of  immediate  and  unconditional  emancipation, 
as  taught  by  Edwards,  were  systematically  confounded  with 
the  “ Jacobinism  of  the  first  French  Revolution  ” — a misre- 
presentation less  excusable  now,  than  during  the  dimness  and 
confusion  near  the  close  of  the  last  century. 

9.  This  untoward  influence  of  the  French  Revolution  was 
increased  by  the  undeniable  fact,  that  a leaven  of  the  French 
infidelity,  and  the  maxims  of  disorganization,  had  insinuated 
themselves  into  the  ranks  of  the  democratic  party  in  this 
country,  and  appeared  to  find  favor  with  some  of  the  popular 
leaders  of  that  school,  some  of  whom  had  advocated  slave 
emancipation.  The  cry  of  the  French  atheists — “ ISTo  mon- 
arch in  heaven,  no  monarch  on  earth,”  if  not  re-echoed  in  this 


* The  story  of  St.  Domingo,  correctly  told,  gives  no  countenance  to  the  idea  of 
the  dangers  of  emancipation.  The  first  act  in  the  tragedy  of  horror,  was  before 
emancipation  had  been  proposed.  The  abolition  of  slavery,  some  time  after,  took 
place  quietly,  and  was  followed  by  years  of  good  order  and  prosperity.  It  was  the 
perfidious  attempt  of  Napoleon,  after  all  this,  to  subjugate  the  island,  and  re-enslave 
the  colored  inhabitants,  that  opened  the  second  scene  of  the  tragedy,  which  was 
indeed  enacted  in  blood,  and  drove  the  surviving  whites  from  the  island.  The 
danger  of  slavery , not  of  freedom , is  the  only  legitimate  inference  from  this  history. 

The  horrors  of  the  French  Revolution,  too,  in  like  manner,  are  to  be  charged 
mainly  upon  the  corruption  in  the  Church  and  the  despotism  in  the  State,  that 
seduced  the  French  philosophers  into  atheism,  and  drove  the  populace  to  despera- 
tion. And  then  it  was  but  a counterfeit  of  true  democracy  that  was  introduced, 
and  holding  no  nearer  affinity  to  it  than  the  corrupted  Christianity  of  France  had 
held  to  the  Christianity  of  Christ.  In  fact,  the  anarchy  that  was  misnamed  liberty, 
was  only  a reproduction  of  the  old  despotisms  in  another  form,  trampling  all  the 
inalienable  rights  of  humanity  under  foot,  and  resulting  in  a settled  military  despot- 
ism in  the  end. 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


131 


country,  was  listened  to  by  many  without  marked  disfavor. 
The  violent  overthrow  of  a corrupt  and  oppressive  Church  in 
France,  had  involved  along  with  it  the  open  repudiation  of 
Christianity  and  the  Bible,  and  had  suggested  the  idea  of 
the  overthrow  of  all  churches.  Thomas  Paine,  a leading 
democratic  writer  of  this  country  during  the  Bevolution,  and 
the  intimate  friend  of  Thomas  Jefferson,  came  home  from  a 
sojourn  in  France,  deeply  imbued  with  these  sentiments,  and 
found  kindred  spirits  here,  where  his  infidel  writings  had  pre- 
ceded him. 

In  the  ranks  of  this  school  might  be  numbered  not  a few 
of  that  class  of  American  revolutionists,  before  noticed,  whose 
influence  and  example,  like  Paine’s,*  were  not  on  the  side  of 
morality  and  social  order,  and  who  could  not  have  contributed, 
had  they  been  thus  disposed  (as  very  many  of  them  were  not) 
to  any  healthful  or  hopeful  enterprise  for  slave  emancipation. 
Had  any  thing  been  desired  or  attempted!  in  that  direction,  by 
the  party  absorbing  this  class  of  influences,  and  coming  into 
power  with  Mr.  Jefferson,  in  1801,  it  is  not  improbable  that 
the  cry  against  them,  of  “ infidelity,  anarchy,  and  bloodshed  ” 
would  have  been,  if  possible,  redoubled.  That  the  opposite 


* Paine  was  an  advocate  of  the  abolition  of  slavery,  and  as  clerk  of  the  Pennsyl- 
vania House  of  Assembly,  affixed  his  signature  to  the  act  of  prospective 
emancipation  in  that  State.  The  infidel  principles  and  lax  morals  of  Paine  occa- 
sioned much  prejudice  against  his  doctrine  of  the  “ rights  of  man.” 

t There  is  no  evidence  that  the  Democratic  or  Republican  party,  at  any  period, 
was  inclined  to  abolish  slavery.  Among  all  the  loud  and  bitter  complaints  raised  by 
them  against  the  alleged  despotic  tendencies  of  the  Federal  party,  its  support  of 
slavery  was  never  mentioned.  And  among  all  the  democratic  measures  proposed 
by  Mr.  Jefferson  while  in  office,  the  abolition  of  slavery  was  not  one.  His  own 
eloquent  writings  against  slavery  could  not  persuade  him  to  emancipate  (as  Washing- 
ton had  done)  his  own  slaves.  The  early  identification  of  a majority  of  leading 
slaveholders  with  the  Democratic  party,  and  the  steady  control  of  that  party  by 
them,  ever  since,  has  always  been  a great  puzzle  and  a great  stumbling-block  in  the 
way  of  Democratic  progress. 

The  historical  solution  seems  to  be,  that  Northern  talent  and  Northern  capital  (the 
natural  rivals  of  Southern  talent  and  capital)  had  committed  themselves  against  the 
democratic  theory.  The  only  way  to  “ get  up  an  issue”  was  to  espouse  the  theory, 
but  blink  the  particular  application  to  slavery,  with  the  double  advantage  of  neutral- 
izing and  disarming  the  hostile  principle.  And  if  democratic  measures  favored 
labor,  the  slaveholder  adroitly  stood  in  the  place  of  the  Southern  laborer,  and  might 
count  on  the  co-operation  of  the  Northern  laborer. 


132 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


party,  while  in  power,  -under  Washington  and  Adams,  and 
amid  the  opposition  they  encountered,  and  the  jealousies,  the 
panic,  and  the  confusion  of  that  singular  crisis,  should  have 
attempted  anything  so  radically  democratic  and  unprecedented 
as  the  sudden  emancipation  of  all  the  slaves,  most  assuredly 
was  not  to  have  been  expected.  We  say  nothing  in  excuse 
of  the  derelictions  of  either  of  these  parties,  nor  in  peculiar  or 
exclusive  reproach  of  either  of  them,  but  we  think  it  impor- 
tant to  present  a true  and  impartial  account  of  the  facts  of 
that  period,  that  the  causes  of  our  present  unhappy  position 
may  be  understood,  and  avoided  in  future.  A Christianity 
crippled  by  an  alliance  with  even  the  most  pure  and  elevated 
description  of  aristocracy,  is  incompetent  to  the  task  of  secur- 
ing human  freedom.  A democracy,  or  a philanthropy,  how- 
ever ardent  and  radical,  that  is  not  based  upon  the  Christianity 
of  the  Bible,  is  equally  impotent,  for  the  same  sublime  mis- 
sion.* 

10.  Among  the  influences  tending  strongly  to  bribe  the  pub- 
lic sentiment,  and  change  the  political  tendencies  of  the  coun- 
try, especially  at  the  South,  on  the  slave  question,  have  been 
justly  reckoned  the  increased  and  unforeseen  profitableness  of 
slaVe  labor,  in  consequence  of  the  invention  of  the  cotton-gin, 
by  Mr.  Whitney.  Of  the  reasons  which  had  operated  to  pro- 
duce the  conviction,  during  the  revolutionary  period,  that 
slavery  was  a waning  system  that  must  soon  be  abandoned, 
the  unprofitableness  of  slave  labor  was  doubtless,  in  many 
minds,  a leading  one.  This  economical  view  of  the  subject 
must  have  become  the  more  prominent  as  the  moral  influences 
and  the  generous  enthusiasm  of  the  revolutionary  period  gave 
place  to  plans  of  individual  thrift  and  accumulation.  Then  it 
was  that  the  blighting  influences  of  slavery  must  have  begun 
to  be  felt ; but  a wonderful  change  was  at  hand,  the  almost 
magical  result  of  a labor-saving  machine,  in  the  hands,  not  of 


* It  belongs  to  a later  period  of  the  history  of  the  parties  to  remark,  that  the 
rival  aristocracies  of  the  Korth  and  South , throwing  the  Federal  party  and  its  suc- 
cessors into  the  embraces  of  the  one,  and  the  Democratic  into  the  hands  of  the 
other,  have  effectually  prevented  the  abolition  of  slavery. 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


133 


the  laborer  himself,  but  of  the  capitalist  who  controlled  him, 
and  appropriated  the  avails  of  his  labor.  And  thus,  at  the 
very  moment  when  the  more  worthy  and  noble  considerations 
in  favor  of  liberty  had  almost  ceased  to  occupy  the  slavehold- 
er’s attention,  the  most  powerful  temptations  were  presented 
to  his  cupidity  and  avarice.  Under  this  temptation,  he  fell. 
And  the  policy  of  the  national  government,  was,  in  conse- 
quence, changed.  On  this  point,  we  present  the  testimony  of 
two  statesmen  holding  opposite  views,  in  general,  of  the  slave 
question. 

“ What,  then,  have  been  the  causes  which  have  created  so  new  a feeling 
in  favor  of  slavery  in  the  South — which  have  changed  the  whole  nomen- 
clature of  the  South  on  the  subject — and  from  being  thought  of  and  de- 
scribed in  the  terms  I have  mentioned  and  will  not  repeat,  it  has  now 
become  an  institution,  a cherished  institution  there  ; no  evil,  no  scourge, 
but  a great  religious,  social,  and  moral  blessing,  as  I think  I have  heard  it 
latterly  described  1 I suppose  this,  sir,  is  owing  to  the  sudden  uprising  and 
rapid  growth  of  the  cotton  plantations  of  the  South.  ****** 
The  tables  will  show7  that  the  exports  of  cotton  for  the  years  1790  and  1791 
were  hardly  more  than,  forty  or  fifty  thousand  dollars  a year.  It  has  gone 
on  increasing  rapidly  until  it  may  now  be,  perhaps,  in  a season  of  great 
product  and  high  prices,  a hundred  millions  of  dollars.  Then  there  was 
more  of  wax,  more  of  indigo,  more  of  rice,  more  of  almost  everything 
exported  from  the  South  than  of  cotton.  I think  I have  heard  it  said,  when 
Mr.  Jay  negotiated  the  treaty  of  1794  with  England,  he  did  not  know  that 
eotton  was  exported  at  all  from  the  United  States ; and  I have  heard  it  said 
that,  after  the  treaty  which  gave  to  the  United  States  the  right  to  carry 
their  own  commodities  to  England  in  their  own  ships,  the  custom-house  in 
London  refused  to  admit  cotton,  upon  an  allegation  that  it  could  not  be  an 
American  production,  there  being,  as  they  supposed,  no  cotton  raised  in 
America.  They  wrnuld  hardly  think  so  now.” — Speech  of  D.  Webster, 
U.  S.  Senate,  March  7,  1850. 

“ Unhappily,  the  original  policy  of  the  Government  and  the  original  prin- 
ciples of  the  Government  in  respect  to  slavery,  did  not  permanently  control 
its  action.  A change  accurred — almost  imperceptible  at  first,  but  becoming 
more  and  more  marked  and  decided,  until  nearly  total.  The  Honorable 
Senator  from  Massachusetts,  in  the  course  of  his  late  speech,  noticed  this 
change,  and  ascribed  it  to  the  rapid  increase  in  the  production  of  cotton. 
Doutless,  sir,  this  vTas  a leading  cause.  The  production  of  cotton,  in  con- 
sequence of  the  invention  of  the  cotton-gin,  increased  from  487,600  pounds 
in  1793,  to  6,276,300  pounds  in  1796,  and  continued  to  increase  very  rapidly 


134 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


afterwards.  Of  course  the  market  value  of  slaves  advanced,  and  masters 
were  less  inclined  to  emancipation.” — Speech  of  S.  P.  Chase,  U.  S.  Senate, 
March  26,  1850. 

When  the  cotton  manufacture  of  the  North  came  to  engross 
so  great  an  amount  of  northern  capital,  a bond  of  affinity  be- 
tween northern  and  southern  capitalists  was  created,  which  at 
length,  has  almost  indissolubly  interwoven  the  Eastern  States 
in  the  web  of  the  slave  power.  If  anything  is  to  be  done  to 
disentangle  or  cut  the  threads,  it  must  be  done  soon. 

11.  There  is  yet  another  cause  to  be  mentioned,  that  oper- 
ates, perhaps,  still  more  strongly  to  attach  the  slaveholders  to 
their  present  system,  and  bind  the  North  to  their  car.  Except 
to  the  growers  of  cotton  and  those  who  raise  human  herds, 
further  north,  to  sell  to  them,  the  slave  S3rstem,  even  now,  is 
not  a pecuniary  benefit  to  the  slaveholder.  Though  many  indi- 
viduals are  enriching  themselves  by  the  system,  the  southern 
country,  on  the  whole,  is  becoming  impoverished  by  it.  But 
there  is,  at  the  South,  a still  more  potent  passion  than  the 
love  of  wealth.  It  is  the  lust  of  political  power,  and  slaver}' 
has  always  been  an  element  of  political  power  to  the  slave- 
holders in  the  Southern  States.  Though  frequently,  if  not 
cofnmonly,  a minority,  in  the  different  States,  (counting 
slaves,  free  colored  persons,  and  non-slavehoiding  whites,)  the 
slaveholders  have  always  held  the  political  power  of  the  slave 
States  in  their  own  hands,  and  may  calculate  upon  doing  this 
while  the  slave  system  continues.  Since  the  adoption  of  the 
Federal  Constitution,  in  1789,  slavery  has  also  become  an  all- 
controlling element  of  political  power  in  this  nation,  in  the 
hands  of  an  oligarchy  of  slaveholders.  This  element,  at  first, 
was  scarcely  perceived.  It  originated  in  that  provision  of  the 
Constitution  which  gives  to  the  South  a representation  for 
their  slaves,  in  the  apportionment  of  representatives,  and  in 
the  election  of  President  and  Yice  President  of  the  United 
States.  A perception  of  this  advantage  has  taught  the  slave- 
holders to  regard  the  slave  system  as  the  grand  instrument  of 
their  political  ascendency  in  the  nation.  It  has  taught  politi- 
cal aspirants  at  the  North  to  become  sycophantic  and  servile. 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


135 


These  joint  influences,  like  the  upper  and  nether  mill-stone, 
are  rapidly  grinding  to  powder  the  last  hopes  of  American 
freedom,  unless  the  remedy  be  promptly  applied  by  the  reso- 
lute withdrawal  of  votes  from  slaveholders  and  their  syco- 
phants. The  federal  patronage,  and  the  national  policy,  in 
the  hands  of  slavery,  have  been  found  too  powerful  for  the 
remaining  energies  of  freedom.  'These  advantages  remaining 
with  the  slave  power,  the  nation  becomes  enslaved. 

12.  Of  all  the  causes  or  indications,  in  that  period,  of  a decline 
of  the  spirit  of  liberty,  and  of  a corresponding  resuscitation  of 
the  once  waning  system  of  slavery,  there  was  none  more  com- 
prehensive, more  significant,  or  more  influential  than  the 
changed  spirit  and  position  of  the  Church. 

Not  one  of  the  causes  or  indications  already  enumerated, 
has  failed  to  affect,  most  injuriously,  the  character  and  the 
influence  of  the  Church,  and  when  the  weight  of  the  Church 
itself  came  to  be  thrown  into  the  scale  of  slavey,  each  one  of 
the  causes  or  indications  connected  with  the  transition  could 
not  fail  to  receive  fresh  accessions  of  strength ; and,  by  being 
combined  in  the  bosom  of  the  Church,  consolidating  and 
intrenching  themselves  there,  with  a compactness  and  solidity 
unknown  before,  they  have  rendered  themselves  almost  im- 
pregnable, ever  since. 

In  speaking  of  this  transition  of  the  Church,  we  do  not  for- 
get that  the  Church  had  not,  at  any  period,  divorced  herself 
wholly  from  slavery,  nor  even,  as  a whole,  taken  the  ground 
of  immediate  and  uncompromising  action  on  the  subject. 
The  doctrine  of  “ gradual  ” repentance,  resulting,  in  part,  from 
the  defective  theologies  then  commonly  in  vogue,  and  which 
rejected  the  idea  of  sudden  moral  transformations,  was  the 
fatal  error  of  the  Church,  and  from  her  it  had  been  imbibed 
by  the  best  statesmen  of  the  age,  nurtured  and  taught  in  her 
bosom. 

But  we  speak  of  the  transition  of  the  Church  as  we  do  of 
the  corresponding  transition  of  the  State.  We  give  both 
bodies  the  credit  of  no  small  degree  of  earnestness  and  hon- 
esty, in  their  opposition  to  slavery  during  the  revolutionary 


186 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


period,  though  they  failed  of  applying  promptly  the  appro-  • 
priate  remedy,  in  its  proper  form.  The  transition  of  which  we 
speak  was  from  this  state  of  honest  opposition  to  slavery  and 
incipient  though  dilatory  action  against  it,  to  a state  of 
comparative  apathy,  first ; of  a quiescence,  next ; and  finally, 
of  apology,  of  biblical  defence,  and  of  opposition  to  all  earnest 
endeavors  to  diffuse  information  on  the  subject,  and  to  array 
a public  sentiment  against  slavery. 

When  the  external  pressures,  and  the  special  dangers  inci- 
dent to  the  slave  system,  during  the  war,  were  removed  from 
the  community  by  the  return  of  peace,  they  were  removed  also 
from  the  Church.  The  Church,  too,  as  well  as  the  world,  for- 
got her  solemn  resolutions,  in  the  hour  of  distress,  to  put  away 
this  iniquity  from  her  bosom.  When  philanthropists  content- 
ed themselves  with  mere  moral  suasion,  without  demanding 
distinct  and  effective  legislation  on  the  subject,  they  acted 
upon  maxims  they  had  imbibed  in  the  Church  ; a Church  that 
neglected  to  preach  the  religious  duty  of  political  justice  in 
“delivering  the  spoiled  out  of  the  hands  of  the  oppressor,” 
and  “executing  judgment  between  a man  and  his  neighbor.” 
When  projects  of  gradualism  deceived  the  friends  of  the  op- 
pressed, it  was  because  the  Church  had  taught  the  doctrines 
of  gradualism  rather  than  those  of  immediate  and  uncon- 
ditional compliance  with  all  the  divine  precepts.  When  the 
moral  reformers  of  those  times  consented  to  moral  compro- 
mises, they  were  kept  in  countenance  by  the  corresponding- 
policy  of  the  Church,  from  which  they  had  received,  directly 
or  indirectly,  their  moral  education,  and  of  which  the  greater 
part  of  them  were  members.  The  general  decline  of  pure 
religion  and  sound  morality  after  the  Revolution,  is  known 
to  have  affected,  very  seriously,  the  Church,  and  it  was  the 
testimony  and  the  complaint  of  her  most  vigilant  watchmen, 
that  her  standard  of  morality,  and  the  efficacy  of  her  discipline 
could  not  be  restored  to  their  former  state.  How  evidently 
and  how  disastrously  must  such  a fact  have  affected  the  posi- 
tion of  the  Church  on  the  slave  question  ! And  how  notori- 
ously have  these  manifestations  been  increasing  ever  since! 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


137 


Even  revivals  of  religion  have  done  little  towards  restoring 
the  ancient  standard  of  morals.  The  moral  duties  have  been 
less  insisted  on  from  the  pulpit,  and  the  religion  revived  and 
propagated'  in  times  of  religious  awakening,  has  been  common- 
ly of  a corresponding  type,  till  the  idea  that  ministers  and 
churches  must  not  meddle  with  political  sins,  has  grown  up 
into  theories  concerning  “ organic  sins,”  that  would  have 
astonished  our  fathers. 

The  general  decline  of  the  spirit  of  liberty  that  was 
witnessed  in  the  community,  was  witnessed  also  in  the 
Church,  and  the  same  moral  lethargy  and  stupor  came  over 
them  both.  The  influx  of  wrealth,  the  erection  of  castes  and 
aristocracies  in  society,  that  displaced  simplicity  and  equality 
in  the  State,  produced  similar  effects  in  the  Church. 
Especially  was  it  true  that  the  more  elevated  aristocracy  of 
intelligence,  of  character,  and  of  spiritual  pride,  that  led 
prominent  statesmen  to  distrust  their  fellow-citizens  in  the 
exercise  of  their  God-given  rights,  found  its  home  and  its 
sanctuary  in  the  high  places  of  the  Church  and  the  ministry, 
by  whom  the  policy  of  those  statesmen  was  most  earnestly 
and  effectively  sustained.  By  these,  in  an  especial  manner, 
were  the  horrors  of  the  French  Revolution  so  exhibited  as  to 
teach  the  danger  of  according  to  human  beings,  as  such,  the 
exercise  of  essential  human  rights.  However  honest  may 
have  been  the  error,  and  however  plausibly  maintained,  it  was 
none  the  less  to  be  deplored.  The  unexpected  profitableness 
of  slave  labor  in  the  production  of  cotton  was  a temptation  to 
the  Church,  as  well  as  to  the  rest  of  the  community,  and  with 
the  rest  of  the  community  the  Southern  Church  fell  into  the 
snare.  And  the  profitableness  of  the  cotton  manufacture  at 
the  North,  and  the  consequent  sympathy  of  the  manufacturer 
with  the  planter,  has  influenced  the  Northern  Church,  not  ex- 
cepting the  Society  of  Friends,  as  really  (if  not  as  universally) 
as  it  has  the  rest  of  the  community.  The  same  may  be 
said  of  the  temptations  of  ambition,  connected  with  this 
anomalous  element  of  political  power,  and  among  our  most 


138 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


supple  and  obsequious  politicians,  are  honored  and  even' 
devout  members  of  the  Church. 

So  that  all  the  elements  and  causes  of  declension,  in  respect 
to  the  treatment  of  slavery,  that  have  appeared  and  operated 
in  the  body  politic,  have  appeared  and  operated  likewise  in 
the  Church.  There  they  have  become  concentrated,  there  they 
have  been  strengthened,  there , above  all,  they  have  been 
baptized  “into  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and 
of  the  Holy  Ghost” — have  been  seated  at  the  communion 
table,  have  been  elevated  into  the  pulpit,  have  been  installed 
trustees  and  professors  of  Colleges  and  Theological  Seminaries ; 
have  been  made  managers  and  life  members  of  Bible,  Tract, 
and  Missionary  Societies,  have  shaped  the  course  of  ecclesi- 
astical bodies,  and  revised  and  controlled  the  discipline  of  the 
Church. 

Besides  all  this,  the  Church  has  seemed  to  embody  elements 
of  deterioration  peculiarly  her  own.  Her  divisions  into  rival 
sects  and  theological  schools  have  ensnared  her ; she  has 
compromised  her  Christian  principles,  has  neutralized,  or  with- 
drawn her  testimony,  and  has  faltered  in  her  administration 
of  discipline,  to  gain  strength  and  numbers  wherewith  to  carry 
on  schismatic  and  polemic  wars  within  her  own  bosom ! 
When  the  Methodist  testimonies  against  slavery  were  found 
to  stand  in  the  way  of  the  comparative  growth  and  prospective 
ascendency  of  the  Methodist  sect,  then  the  severity  of 
Methodist  discipline  against  slavery  must  be  relaxed  (so  we 
have  been  told  by  the  apologists  of  that  policy)  to  propitiate 
the  favor  of  slaveholders.  In  the  same  way,  and  for  the  same  i 
object,  the  testimonies  of  the  Presbyterian  sect  against  slavery 
must  be  rendered  a dead  letter,  and  the  most  pointed  of  them 
at  length,  expunged.  The  unity  and  extension  of  the  sect, 
and  the  harmony  of  its  ecclesiastical  action  throughout  the 
country,  must  not  be  disturbed  by  any  agitation  of  the  exci- 
ting question.  The  cry  of  “ peace,  peace,”  must  drown  the 
voice  of  remonstrance  against  the  crying  sin  of  the  Church. 
And  thus  the  Church  becomes  a privileged  body,  the  mem- 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


139 


bers  of  which  appear  to  claim  peculiar  exemption  from 
reproof  for  their  sins. 

13.  There  is  still  another  and  a most  potent  element  and 
evidence  of  deterioration,  on  this  subject,  that  we  know  not 
how  to  treat  of,  as  its  magnitude  and  its  meanness  demand. 
Whenever  we  attempt  to  speak  or  write  upon  it,  we  feel  our 
cheeks  burning  with  indignation  and  shame.  We  know  not 
how  or  in  what  terms  to  describe  it,  to  what  origin  to  trace  it, 
or  by  what  considerations  to  attempt  to  dislodge  it  from  the 
minds  of  sane  men.  From  its  flat  contradiction  of  the  Bible, 
we  should  characterize  it  as  decidedly  of  infidel  parentage,  yet 
we  find  it  nestling  in  the  bosom  of  the  Church.  From  its 
unaccountableness,  we  should  describe  it  by  the  names  of 
hypocrisy  and  pretence,  did  not  its  malignity  prove  its 
sincerity  and  reality.  Were  it  less  murderous  and  less 
blasphemous,  we  might  laugh  at  it ; were  it  less  ludicrous,  we 
might  reason  against  it;  were  it  less  mean,  we  could  enter 
the  lists  against  it,  as  an  object  of  honorable  warfare.  We 
should  attribute  it  to  sheer  vulgarity  and  ignorance  (where 
we  find  it  signally  at  home)  but  that  we  meet  with  it  also  in 
circles  claiming  refinement  and  learning.  We  allude  to  the 
infatuation  that  virtually  predicates  humanity  upon  the  hue 
of  the  skin,  that  disbelieves  that  “God  had  made  of  one  blood 
all  nations  of  men,”  that  arrogates  to  less  than  one-sixth  part 
of  the  human  race  the  exclusive  monopoly  of  our  common 
humanity,  that  thus  falsifies  the  self-evident  truths  of  our 
Declaration  of  Independence,  and  sets  up,  in  the  temples  of 
Jehovah,  the  monuments  of  heathen  caste. 

Existing  in  and  controlling  both  the  community  and  the 
Church,  this  prejudice  should  have  been  noticed  earlier  in  our 
enumeration  of  evil  influences,  but  it  seems  not  to  have 
attained  its  gigantic  growth  till  the  united  energies  of  a lapsed 
Church  and  State  had  first  provided  for  it,  new  methods  of 
culture.  We  do  not  say  that  the  Colonization  Society 
organized  in  1816,  created  this  prejudice,  for  without  such  a 
prejudice  the  idea  of  colonizing  a portion  of  our  citizens  on 
the  ground  of  their  color  could  not  have  been  conceived. 


140 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


But  we  do  saj  that  the  existence  and  operations  of  that]  t 
Society,  have  more  than  quadrupled  the  strength  and  the]  I 
extent  of  that  prejudice,  in  a few  brief  years.  It  is  a prejudice  ; 
stronger  at  the  North  - than  at  the  South,  because  the  two  ; 
colors  do  not  come  so  constantly  in  contact.  Yet,  at  the 
North,  it  had  scarcely  made  its  appearance  in  common  schools 
and  worshiping  assemblies,  at  the  beginning  of  the  present  : 
century,  as  many  can  testify. 

The  Maryland  laws,  before  quoted,  forbidding  white  women 
to  marry  negroes,  simply  for  the  reason  stated,  that  the  latter 
were  slaves , afford  sufficient  proof  of  the  modern  date  of  this 
prejudice,  and  of  its  origin  in  the  slave  system. 

In  countries  not  familiarized  with' a population  of  colored 
slaves,  (as  in  Russia  and  Poland,  where  the  serfs  are  all 
whites,)  the  prejudice  against  colored  people  is  unknown,  and 
its  existence  among  us  is  there  discredited,  or  considered  an 
inexplicable  phenomenon.  In  France,  in  England,  in  Ger- 
many, and  throughout  all  Europe,  though  the  Jews  are  a 
degraded  caste,  the  educated  negro  has  free  access,  and  on 
terms  of  unquestioned  equality,  to  the  very  highest  circles  of 
society.  It  is  reserved  to  a nation  pluming  itself  upon  being 
the  world’s  teacher  of  the  doctrine  of  human  equality,  to  deny 
the  common  courtesies  of  life,  along  with  the  essential  rights 
of  humanity,  to  a large  part  of  the  human  species,  (to  the  very 
race  first  proficient  in  literature  and  civilization,)  on  account 
of  their  color!  Thus  do  we  invite  and  merit  a world’s  scorn  ! 

Were  it  not  for  this  stupid  prejudice  against  color,  the 
sceptre  of  the  slaveholding  oligarchy  would  drop  powerless  I 
at  once,  and  the  nation  would  be  disenthralled.  Sustained  by  I 
this  debasing  prejudice,  its  supremacy  must  remain  unbroken,  : 
and  the  nation  must  be  enslaved.  Slavery  knows  no  color. — 
“In  the  progress  of  time,  some  one  hundred  and  fifty  or  two 
hundred  years  hence,  but  few  vestiges  of  the  black  race  will 
remain  among  our  posterity .”  So  says  Henry  Clay,*  and  the 


* Speech  of  Henry  Clay,  in  the  U.  S.  Senate,  in  1839.  In  this  speech  Mr.  Clay 
urged  arguments  against  “ emancipation,  immediate  or  gradual.”  “ The  first  imped- 
iment, is#the  absolute  want  of  power  in  the  Federal  Government  to  effect  the 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


141 


constant  and  rapid  blending  of  colors  at  the  South  justifies 
the  estimate.  But  the  bleaching  process  removes  not  the  taint 
of  slavery.  The  child  of  the  slave  mother  follows  her  condi- 
tion. Persons  of  the  whitest  complexion  are  already  held  as 


purpose.”  “ The  next  obstacle  in  the  way  of  abolition  arises  out  of  the  fact  of  the 
presence,  in  the  Slave  States,  of  three  millions  of  slaves.  No  practical  scheme  for 
their  removal  or  separation  from  us,  has  yet  been  devised  or  proposed.”  [The 
Colonization  scheme,  then,  is  not  “practical.”]  “The  third  impediment  to  imme- 
diate abolition,  is  to  be  found  in  the  immense  amount  of  capital  which  is  invested  in 
slave  property.”  “ The  total  value  of  slave  property  then,  by  estimate,  in  the  United 
States,  is  twelve  hundred  millions  of  dollars.  And  now  it  is  rashly  proposed,  by  a 
single  fiat  of  legislation,  to  annihilate  this  immense  amount  of  property  ! To  anni- 
hilate it  without  indemnity,  and  without  compensation  to  the  owners.”  “I  know 
there  is  a visionary  dogma  which  holds  that  negro  slaves  cannot  be  the  subject  of 
property  : I shall  not  dwell  long  on  the  speculative  abstraction.  That  is  property 
which  the  law  declares  to  be  property.  Two  hundred  years  of  legislation  have  sanc- 
tified and  sanctioned  negro  slaves  as  property.”  “ It  is  frequently  asked,  What  is 
to  become  of  the  African  race  among  us  ? Are  they  forever  to  remain  in  bondage  ?” 
* * * “ Taking  the  aggregate  of  the  two  races,  the  European  is  constantly, 
though  slowly,  gaining  on  the  African  portion.  In  the  progress  of  time,  some  one 
hundred  and  fifty  or  two  hundred  years  hence,  but  few  vestiges  of  the  black  race 
will  remain  among  our  posterity.” 

The  speech  will  repay  close  study.  In  no  part  of  it  does  Mr.  Clay  intimate  a 
future  abolition  of  slavery.  The  “ impediments”  he  urges  will  not  diminish.  The 
limited  powers  of  the  Federal  Government — the  sanction  of  centuries  of  legislation 
— the  impossibility  of  separation  or  removal — the  appalling  amount  of  property 
invested — all  these,  except  the  first  item,  must  increase.  Neither  does  Mr.  Clay  pre- 
dict the  future  extinction  of  slavert,  but  only  the  disappearance  of  the  “ black  race 
from  among  our  posterity  /”  The  language  is  exceedingly  guarded,  and  commend- 
ably  accurate.  Mr.  Clay  knows  that  the  slave  population,  like  the  free,  are  increasing 
in  a geometrical  ratio.  And  that,  if  it  be  true  that  the  free  (or  as  he  has  it,  the 
European  portion)  are  gaining  a little  more  rapidly,  this  does  not  alter  the  fact  of  the 
rapid  increase  of  slaves,  whatever  their  color  may  be.  Indisputably  it  is  the  process 
of  amalgamation,  and  nothing  else , that  lays  the  foundation  for  the  estimate  that  one 
hundred  and  fifty  or  two  hundred  years  will  “ leave  but  few  vestiges  of  the  black 
race  among  our  posterity  !”  Neither  the  “slaves”  nor  the  “blacks”  are  diminishing 
by  depopulation,  like  the  Indians  and  the  Sandwich  Islanders.  The  reverse  is  the 
known  fact.  Mr.  Clay’s  remedy  for  the  “bondage  of- the  African  race”  is  mani- 
festly a future  enslavement  of  a vastly  greater  number  of  “ our  posterity ,”  “ AMONG” 
whom  will  remain  “but  few  vestiges  of  the  black  race  in  one  hundred  and  fifty  or 
two  hundred  years.” 

Gov.  McDuffie,  of  South  Carolina,  had  declared  a laboring  community,  “ bleached 
or  unbleached,”  “ a dangerous  element  in  the  body  politic.”  He  had  anticipated 
their  enslavement,  in  the  Northern  States,  in  “less  than  a quarter  of  a century.” 
To  Mr.  Clay  it  was  reserved  to  intimate  a respite  of  one  hundred  and  fifty  or  two 
hundred  years,  showing  how  it  must  then  be  inevitably  introduced,  by  causes 
already  in  operation,  and  fortified  by  formidable  “ obstacles”  and  “ impediments”  in 


142 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


slaves — fugitives  are  thus  described  in  advertisements,  bunted, 
captured  at  the  North,  and  taken  back  again.  And  it  is 
known  that,  in  some  cases,  white  persons  have  been  kidnapped 
who  had  no  African  blood  in  their  veins. 

To  this  point,  then,  at  length,  our  declension  has  reached. 
We  hesitate  to  give  up  the  insane  prejudice  that  supports 
slavery,  though  told  never  so  plainly,  and  from  the  best 
authority,  that  the  consequence  must  be  the  loss  of  our  own 
liberties — the  enslavement  of  our  own  children!  Nay,  while 
we  hear  it  proclaimed  from  the  loftiest  battlements  of  slave- 
dom,  that  “ the  noblest  blood  of  Virginia,”  the  noblest  blood 
of  our  revolutionary  sires,  runs  in  the  veins  of  slaves.* * 


the  way  of  their  removal.  Those  “obstacles”  and  “impediments”  present  the 
problem  for  the  laboring  people  of  the  free  States.  Unless  overcome,  the  prophecy 
of  Mr.  Clay  must  become  history.  There  is  no  possible  or  conceivable  alternative. 
Let  the  people  banish  prejudice  against  color , and  all  Mr.  Clay’s  “impediments”  and 
“ obstacles”  would  vanish  in  twenty-four  hours. 

* It  has  been  credibly  reported,  over  the  signatures  of  respectable  citizens,  that  a 
reputed  daughter  of  Thomas  Jefferson  has  been  seen  exposed  for  sale  at  auction  in 
New  Orleans,  as  a slave.  The  known  usages  of  slavery  in  America  are  such  as  to 
render  the  statement  a highly  probable  one.  It  is  also  said  that  a grand-daughter  of 
Mr.  Jefferson  is  among  the  colonists  of  Liberia.  The  statement,  along  with  the  fol- 
lowing, is  from  a communication  in  “ Frederick  Douglass’  paper”  for  March  25, 1852: 
“ I have  heard  from  an  eye  witness,  that  on  more  than  one  occasion,  when  the  sage 
of  Moutieello  left  that  retreat  for  the  Presidential  abode  at  Washington,  there  would 
be  on  the  top  of  the  same  coach  a yellow  boy  1 running  away.’  And  when  told 
that  one  of  his  slaves  was  going  off  without  leave,  Jefferson  said,  1 Well,  let  him  go, 
his  right  is  as  good  as  his  father’s  1’  And,  somehow,  that  boy  would  get  a doceur 
before  the  ‘ parting  of  the  ways.’  ” 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


143 


CHAPTER  XII. 

POSITION  OF  THE  AMERICAN  CHURCHES  RESPECTING  SLAVERY 
DURING  THE  FIRST  HALF  OF  THE  NINETEENTH  CENTURY. 

I. — METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH. 

General  Conference  of  1801 — do.  of  1836— Contrast  with  1797 — Leading  Ministers — 
Prof.  E.  D.  Sims — Dr.  S.  Olin — Pres.  Thornton— Bishop  Soule — Dr.  Bond — Pres. 
Fiske — Bishop  Hedding — Refusal  to  put  to  vote  Anti-Slavery  Resolutions  in  Con- 
ference— Georgia  Annual  Conference — S.  Carolina  Conference — “ Book  Concern” 
—General  Conference  for  1810 — Division  concerning  slaveholding  Bishops — 
Grounds  of  the  division — Slaveholding  statistics  of  M.  E.  Church,  North. 


In  speaking  of  the  position  of  tlie  churches,  we  shall  have 
reference  to  the  general  fact — the  principal  religious  denomi- 
nations— the  leading  influences — not  forgetting  that  there  are 
honorable  exceptions  to  the  picture  we  shall  be  compelled  to 
present. 

The  former  anti-slaverj  testimonies  of  the  Society  of 
Friends,  and  also  of  the  Presbyterian  and  Methodist,  and 
some  of  the  Baptist  churches,  until  near  the  close  of  the  last 
century,  we  have  presented  already.*  Of  other  denomina- 
tions, as  such,  at  that  period,  we  had  nothing  of  an  authentic 
character  to  record.  We  are  assured  that  there  were  earnest 
opposers  of  slavery  among  Episcopalians,  and  other  religious 
communions. 

Of  the  course  of  the  principal  denominations  since  that  time, 
and  their  position  at  present,  we  propose  now  to  treat ; in  doing 
which,  such  facts  will  be  brought  forward  as  will  enable  the 
reader  to  form  his  own  judgment  in  the  premises. 


* See  Chapters  IV.  and  IX. 


144 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH. 

In  reverting  to  tlie  action  of  the  Methodist  Conferences, 
towards  the  close  of  the  last  century  (Chap.  IX.),  the  reader 
would  almost  be  warranted  to  take  it  for  granted  that  slave- 
holding, in  that  religious  denomination,  must  have  speedily- 
come  to  an  end.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  such  was  the 
intention  of  the  Conferences,  and  that  such  was  the  general 
expectation  at  the  time.  Such,  however,  was  not  the  fact. 
The  fatal  error  seems  to  have  consisted  in  an  unwarrantable 
lenity  towards  delinquent  members,  in  not  promptly  enforcing 
the  discipline,  and  this  under  the  delusive  expectation  that 
they  would,  in  a short  time,  be  prepared  to  take  the  step, 
voluntarily,  themselves,  without  being  authoritatively  coerced. 
Never,  perhaps,  was  there  a more  striking  illustration  of  the 
danger  of  such  delays.  The  church  that,  with  a full  and  clear 
perception  of  the  iniquity  of  a practice  existing  among  its 
members,  has  not  fidelity  and  energy  to  expel  it  at  once,  has 
no  reason  to  flatter  itself  that  it  ever  will.  If  the  Friends 
were  more  successful,  notwithstanding  their  tardy  process,  the 
reason  may  perhaps  be  found  in  the  fact,  that  they  did  not  so 
directly  sin  against  their  own  conscientious  convictions,  in 
withholding  church  discipline.  They  were  first  led  to  con- 
demn what  appeared  to  be  the  abuses  of  slavery,  then  the 
slave  trade , and  at  last,  slaveholding  itself.  And  so  far  as  their 
convictions  went,  they  put  them  in  practice.  But  Methodism, 
which  had  its  rise  amid  the  testimonies  and  the  conviction 
that  “slavery  is  the  sum  of  all  villaniesf  could  not  sit  down 
with  that  iniquity  in  her  skirts  without  being  overcome  by  it. 

In  1801,  the  General  Conference  said — 

“ We  are  more  than  ever  convinced  of  the  great  evil  of  African  Slavery, 
which  still  exists  in  these  United  States.” 

And  there  the  testimony  still  stands.  “More  than  ever 
convinced  of  the  great  evil,”  and  “ more  than  ever”  wedded 
to  it  and  embedded  in  it.  Such  testimonies,  though  some- 
times apparently  relied  upon,  to  disprove  the  pro-slavery 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


145 


character  of  the  Church,  contain  the  strongest  proof  of  the 
inexcusableness  of  its  position.  The  Church  knows  the  evil, 
but  nevertheless  hugs  it  to  her  bosom. 

Yet  there  should  be  noticed  here,  perhaps,  a studied  dilution 
of  the  testimony  previously  given.  In  1780,  slavery  was 
admitted  to  be  “ contrary  to  the  laws  of  God,  man,  and  nature, 
and  hurtful  to  Society,  contrary  to  the  dictates  of  conscience 
and  true  religion,  and  doing  what  we  would  not  that  others 
should  do  unto  us.”  This  clearly  describes  it  as  a sin.  But 
in  1801  it  is  only  designated,  in  vague  terms,  as  an  evil ; 
whether  physical  or  moral,  is  not  expressed.  To  those  who 
would  understand  the  course  and  the  position  of  our  ecclesi- 
astical bodies,  these  nice  distinctions  should  be  noticed  with 
care.  “Fraud  lurketh  in  generalities,”  said  Lord  Coke. 

“ Rev.  Robert  Emory,  in  his  history  of  ‘ The  Discipline,’  informs  us  that 
he  finds  the  following  : — 

“ In  1789,  ‘ The  buying  and  selling  the  bodies  and  souls  of  men,  women, 
or  children,  with  intention  to  enslave  them.’ 

“In  1792,  it  reads  ‘The  buying  or  selling  of  men,  women,  or  children, 
with  an  intention  to  enslave  them.’ 

“In  1808,  it  reads  ‘The  buying  and  selling  of  men,  women,  and 
children,’  &c. 

“For  this  alteration  no  authority  is  found  in  the  Journal  of  the  General 
Conference.” — “ The  Grounds  of  Secession,  from  the  M.  E.  Church" — By 
0.  Scott,  p.  45. 

“ And  the  following,  from  a letter  published  in  the  Pittsburg  Christian 
Advocate,  by  Rev.  Mr.  Drummond,  is  not  less  important : 

“ If  we  take  the  action  of  the  General  Conference  as  a true  index  of  anti- 
slavery feeling  and  zeal  in  the  Church,  I think  it  apparent  that  these  have 
been  considerably  diminished,  since  1800.” — lb.  pp.  45-46. 

“In  1804,  the  paragraphs  about  considering  the  subject,  and  petitions  to 
the  legislatures  (viz  : No.  4,  of  1796,  and  No.  6,  of  1800)  were  stricken 
out.” 

1808 — Paragraph  2 and  3 of  1796  were  struck  out,  and  the  following 
substituted  : 

“3.  The  General  Conference  authorizes  each  Annual  Conference  to  form 
their  own  regulations,  relative  to  buying  and  selling  slaves.” — lb.  p.  47. 

The  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
held  at  Cincinnati,  in  1836,  declared  that  they  “ wholly  disclaim 
any  right,  wish,  or  intention,  to  interfere  with  the  civil  and 

10 


146 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


political  relation  of  master  and  slave,  as  it  exists  in  the  slave*  • 
holding  States  of  this  Union.”  This  was  adopted  by  a vote 
of  120  to  14. 

The  action  of  the  Conference,  at  the  same  time  against 
abolitionists,  will  be  noticed  in  another  chapter.  What  we  have 
to  do  with,  now , is  the  changed  attitude  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  respecting  slavery.  We  quote  their  proceed- 
ings still  farther  on  this  point.  In  their  Pastoral  Address, 
dissuading  their  members  from  agitating  the  subject,  they 
say— 

“ The  question  of  slavery  in  the  United  States,  by  the  constitutional 
compact  which  binds  us  together,  as  a nation,  is  left  to  be  regulated  by  the 
several  State  Legislatures  themselves ; and  thereby  is  put  beyond  the 
control  of  the  general  government,  as  well  as  of  all  ecclesiastical  bodies  ; it 
being  manifest  that  in  the  slaveholding  states  themselves  the  entire 
responsibility  of  its  existence  or  non-existence  rests  with  those  State 
legislatures.” 

What  “ Constitutional  Compact”  had  there  been  made 
since  1797,  when  the  General  Conference,  as  before  shown,*  I 
had  required  its  preachers  to  memorialize  the  legislatures  ? 
And  if,  as  stated  in  1836,  the  sole  responsibility  rested  on  the 
State  Legislatures,  why  not  continue  to  memorialize  them 
still?  There  must  have  been  Methodists  in  those  legislatures, 
and  probably  few  or  no  members  of  those  bodies  held  seats 
there  without  the  aid  of  Methodist  votes  ? Aside  from  this, 
how  could  an)r  state  or  national  arrangements  relieve  the 
Church  from  the  responsibility  of  carrying  out  its  own  Church 
discipline?  The  truth  was  expressed  in  the  Resolution  just 
now  quoted.  The  Conference  had  “ no  wish ” “ to  interfere 
in  the  civil  and  political  relation  of  master  and  slave.”  Too 
many  of  them  were  slavemasters  themselves. 

Another  important  thing  to  be  noticed  here,  is,  the  new 
views  of  the  M.  E.  Conference,  since  1797  or  1801  and  1836, 
on  the  subject  of  the  bearings  of  the  Federal  Constitution  on 
the  question.  It  indicates  a corresponding  change  in  the 
community  in  general.  New  expositions  and  applications  of 


Chap.  IX. 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM.  147 

constitutional  law  must  have  grown  up,  or  we  should  not 
witness  such  a change  of  language. 

Leading  non-slaveholding  ministers  of  the  M.  E.  Church, 
were  now  forward  to  take  similar  ground,  and  even  to  vindi- 
cate the  rightfulness  of  slaveholding. 

“ Having  established  the  point,  that  the  first  African  slaves  were  legally 
brought  into  bondage,  the  right  to  detain  their  children  in  bondage,  follows 
as  an  indispensable  consequence.  Thus  we  see  that  the  slavery  which 
exists  in  America,  was  founded  in  right.” — Professor  E.  D.  Simms  of 
Virginia  Conference. 

“ Not  only  is  holding  slaves,  on  the  conditions  and  under  the  restrictions 
of  the  discipline,  no  disqualification  for  the  ministerial  office  ; but  I will  go  a 
little  further,  and  say,  that  slaveholding  is  not  constitutionally  a forfeiture  of 
a man's  right,  if  he  may  be  said  to  have  one,  to  the  office  of  a bishop.” — Dr. 
S.  Olin,  Pres,  of  the  Wesleyan  University,  Middletown,  ( Ct .) 

“ That  God  not  only  permitted  it,  but  absolutely  provided  for  its  perpe- 
tuity. The  act  of  holding  a slave  then,  under  all  circumstances,  God  being 
judge,  is  not  sin.” — Pres.  S.  C.  Thornton,  Centenary  College,  Miss. 
Conference. 

“ I have  never  vet  advised  the  liberation  of  a slave,  and  think  I never 
shall.” — Bishop  Soule  at  the  Pittslurg  Conference,  Washington,  Pa.,  Juty, 
1839. 

“ The  buying  of  a slave  may  be  an  act  of  great  humanity  under  certain 
circumstances,  as  well  as  the  holding  of  those  already  in  possession.  And, 
moreover,  we  should  be  as  much  opposed  to  the  introduction  of  a rule  of 
discipline,  to  expel  from  our  communion  all  who  bought  a slave,  whatever 
the  motives  might  be,  as  we  are  to  a rule  to  expel  all  slaveholders  under  all 
circumstances.” — Dr.  Bond  of  N.  Y.,  to  R.  Boyd , 1840. 

The  late  Wilbur  Fisk,  D.  D.,  President  of  the  Wesleyan 
University,  Middletown,  Conn.,  said  : 

“ The  relation  of  master  and  slave  may,  and  does,  in  many  cases,  exist 
rnder  such  circumstances  as  free  the  master  from  the  just  charge  and  guilt 
if  immorality.” 

“The  general  rule  of  Christianity  not  only  permits,  but  in  supposable 
:ases  enjoins,  a continuance  of  the  master's  authority.” 

“ The  New  Testament  enjoins  obedience  upon  the  slave,  as  an  obligation 
)ue  to  a present  rightful  authority.” 

a Rev.  Elijah  Hedding,  D.  D.,  one  of  the  six  Methodist 
Bishops,”  and  also  a northern  man,  said: 

“ The  right  to  hold  a slave  is  founded  on  this  rule  : ‘ Therefore,  all  things 


148 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


whatsoever  ye  would  that  men  should  do  to  you,  do  ye  even  so  to  them  ; 
for  this  is  the  law  and  the  prophets.’  ” — Ch.  Ado.  and  Jour.,  Oct.  20,  1837. 

Bishop  Hedding,  presiding  at  the  New  England  Conference, 
in  1838,  refused  to  put  resolutions,  condemning  the  buying 
and  selling  of  slaves,  and  at  the  same  time  refused  to  put  a 
motion  declaring  slavery  to  be  a moral  evil. 

“ In  the  year  1837,  the  Baltimore  Conference  passed  the  following  reso- 
lution : 

“ That  in  all  cases  of  administration  under  the  General  Rule  in  reference 
to  buying  and  selling  men,  women,  and  children,  &c.,  it  be,  and  hereby  is 
recommended  to  all  committees,  as  the  sense  of  this  Conference,  that  the 
said  rule  be  taken,  construed,  and  understood  so  as  not  to  make  the  guilt  or 
innocence  of  the  accused  to  depend  upon  the  simple  fact  of  purchase  or 
sale,  but  upon  the  attendant  circumstances  of  cruelty,  injustice,  or  inhu- 
manity on  the  one  hand,  or  those  of  kind  purposes  or  good  intentions  on  the 
other,  under  which  the  actions  shall  have  been  perpetrated ; and  further  it 
is  recommended,  that,  in  all  such  cases,  the  charge  be  brought  for  immor- 
ality, and  the  circumstances  be  adduced  as  specifications  under  that  charge.’  ” 
The  Grounds  of  Secession,  &c.,  pp.  53-4. 

“ The  General  Conference  of  1840  approved  of  the  journals  of  the  Bal- 
timore Conference,  with  this  resolution  in  them — approved  of  them,  this 
resolution  and  all ; consequently,  approved  of  it,  and  made  it  their  own.” — lb. 

.For  a fall  account  the  reader  is  referred  to  the  work  just 
quoted,  and  also  to  Lucius  C.  Matlack’s  “ History  of  Ameri- 
can Slavery  and  Methodism,”  from  1780  to  1849,  an  elaborate 
and  documentary  work  of  nearly  400  pages. 

The  Georgia  Annual  Conference  unanimously  resolved,  “ that  slavery,  as 
it  exists  in  the  United  States,  is  not  a moral  evil.” 

The  South  Carolina  Conference  unanimously  adopted  the  following : 
“ Whereas,  we  hold  that  the  subject  of  slavery  in  these  United  States  is 
not  one  proper  for  the  action  of  the  Church,  but  is  exclusively  appropriate 
to  the  civil  authorities,  therefore,  resolved,  that  this  Conference  will  not 
meddle  with  it,  farther  than  to  express  the  regret  that  it  has  ever  been 
introduced,  in  any  form,  into  any  of  the  judicatures  of  the  Church.” 

“Rev.  W.  Capers,  D.D.,”  who  offered  this  resolution,  explained  it  as 
“ implying  that  slavery  is  not  a moral  evil.  He  understood  it  as  equivalent 
to  such  a declaration.  His  purpose  was  that  of  not  only  reproving  some 
wrong  doings  at  the  North,  but  with  respect  also  to  the  General  Confer- 
ence,” &c.  “ If  slavery  were  a moral  evil — that  is,  sin — the  Church  would 

be  bound  to  take  cognizance  of  it.” — [January,  1839.] 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


149 


“ The  Book  Concern,  in  New  York,  up  to  the  division  which  followed 
the  General  Conference  of  1844,  published  boo^s  for  the  whole  connection, 
North  and  South  ; hence,  in  the  republication  of  English  works  which  have 
contained  allusions  to  slavery,  various  expedients  were  resorted  to,  to  ren- 
der them  acceptable  to  slaveholders.  Sometimes  the  anti-slavery  matter  is 
said  to  have  been  expunged,  and  in  other  cases  it  has  been  attempted  to 
explain  it  away  by  notes  appended  by  the  American  Book-room  editor.” — 
True  Wesleyan,  Jan.  24,  1852.  - 

The  Editor  of  the  True  Wesleyan,  proceeds  to  specify  an 
instance  of  the  latter.  In  re-publishing  Watson’s  Theological 
Institutes,  in  which  were  found  some  pointed  remarks  against 
slaveholders,  a note  is  appended,  evidently  designed  to  make 
the  impression  that  it  is  not  applicable  to  American  slavery. 

The  General  Conference  for  1840  adopted  the  following: 

“ Resolved,  that  it  is  inexpedient  and  unjustifiable  for  any  preacher  to 
permit  colored  persons  to  give  testimony  against  white  persons,  in  any  State 
where  they  are  denied  that  privilege  by  law.” 

A motion  was  made  to  re-eonsider  this  Resolution,  and 
several  attempts  were  made  at  compromise,  but  after  a long 
discussion,  the  resolution  was  permitted  to  stand.  Thus  was 
the  ecclesiastical  polity  of  the  Church  conformed  to  the  slave 
code. 

Some  time  after  the  “Wesleyan”  secession  from  the  M.  E. 
Church  on  account  of  slavery,  a division  took  place  in  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  growing  out  of  the  refusal  of  the 
Church  to  consent  to  having  slaveholding  bishops.  Of  this 
division  we  present  the  following  account  from  the  True 
Wesleyan  (a  paper  of  the  Wesleyan  Secession,)  then  edited  by 
by  Rev.  Luther  Lee,  as  copied  into  the  Annual  Report  of  the 
Am.  and  For.  A.  S.  Society,  for  1850  : 

“ The  action  of  the  General  Conference  which  led  to  the  separation,  was 
not  against  slavery  or  slaveholding  by  the  membership  or  ministers,  but 
simply  against  slaveholding  by  the  Episcopacy,  and  that  not  upon  principle, 
sut  wholly  upon  the  ground  of  expediency.  This  division  was  brought 
lbout  by  the  Southern  and  not  by  the  Northern  members,  who  did  what 
hey  could  to  prevent  it,  and  now  condemn  the  act  as  unjustifiable  ; but  it 
lid  not  throw  all  the  slave  States  into  the  Southern  General  Conference. 
Official  documents  show  that  there  are,  at  the  present  time,  in  the  'Northern 


150 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


General  Conference,  eight  annual  Conferences,  a part  or  the  whole  of  whose  ' 
territory  is  in  the  slavehplding  States.  There  are  many  siaveholding 
preachers  in  the  M.  E.  Church,  and  it  ordains  slaveholders  to  the  ministry. 

It  is  computed  that  there  are  in  the  M.  E.  Church,  North,  not  less  than  four 
thousand  slaveholders,  and  twenty-seven  thousand  slaves.”* 

It  would  be  difficult  to  reconcile  with  these  facts  the  strong  anti-slavery 
resolutions  of  the  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
North,  in  1849  and  in  1850,  denouncing  slavery  in  severe  terms,  repudiating 
“the  low  standard  of  morality  that  sanctions  the  settlement  of  any  difficul- 
ties by  a compromise  of  moral  principles,”  and  concluding  the  whole  by  the 
following  : 

“ Resolved,  that  Christians  cannot  consistently  give  their  influence  to 
elevate  men  to  places  of  honor  and  trust  who  are  known  to  be  supporters 
of  any  great  social  and  moral  evil. 

“ Resolved,  that  the  glory  of  God  and  the  good  of  mankind  require  the 
exclusion  of  slaveholders  from  the  Christian  Church.” — Annual  Report 
American  and  Foreign  Anti-  Slavery  Society , 1850. 

This  progress,  (if  it  be  progress)  as  well  as  the  inconsistencies 
connected  with  it,  may  perhaps  be  accounted  for,  by  the  move- 
ments among  Northern  Methodist  Abolitionists,  resulting  in  a 
secession,  and  in  the  organization  of  a new  ecclesiastical 
connection,  called  the  Wesleyan  Church.  These  movements 
made  it  necessary  to  oppose  the  election  of  a slaveholding 
bishop,  and  to  adopt  strong  resolutions  against  slavery. 


* The  following  statement  apparently  varies  from  the  preceding,  in  respect  to  the 
number  of  slaveholding  Conferences  : 

“ The  Methodist  Church  North  has  about  one-fifth  part  as  many  slaveholding 
societies  as  the  entire  Church  South.  It  reports  in  the  slave  States  three  annua! 
conferences,  857  preachers,  and  86,627  members,  all  in  actual  and  full  fellowship 
with  slaveholding.” — Pres.  Blanchard,  as  reported  hy  Cleveland  True  Democrat , Sep. 
26,  1851. 

The  solution,  as  furnished  us  by  Mr.  Lee,  is,  that  five  of  the  Conferences,  viz.,  the 
Pittsburg,  the  Ohio,  the  Indiana,  the  Illinois,  and  the  Philadelphia,  though  bearing 
Northern  names,  include  portions  of  slave  territory;  while  the  Western  Virginia, 
the  Missouri,  and  the  Baltimore,  are  slaveholding,  of  course : eight  in  all. 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


151 


CHAPTER  XIII. 

POSITION  OF  THE  AMERICAN  CHURCHES,  ETC.  CONTINUED. 

II. — THE  PRESBYTERIAN  CHURCH. 

General  Assembly,  1815 — 1816— ISIS — Erasure  of  anti-slavery  testimony  of  1794 — 
Synod  of  Kentucky,  1834 — Anti-slavery  testimony  and  pro-slavery  practice — 
General  Assembly,  1835 — Doctors  of  Divinity”  engaged  in  tlie  traffic — 1836 — 
Pro-slavery  pamphlet  from  Princeton — Discussion — Indefinite  postponement — 
General  Assembly  of  1837 — Anti-slavery  memorials  laid  on  the  table — Excision  of 
four  Northern  Synods — Division  of  General  Assembly  in  1838— And  the  reason — • 
“ Old-School”  Assembly  declined  discussing  Slavery — In  1S43,  laid  Anti-slavery 
memorials  on  the  table  without  reading — In  1S45,  declared  that  “ to  treat  slavery 
as  necessarily  a sin,  would  be  to  dissolve  itself” — In  1847,  re-affirmed  its  former 
testimonies — In  1850,  declared  the  “ interference”  of  the  General  Association  of 
Massachusetts  on  the  subject  “ offensive” — New-School  General  Assembly, 
1838,  Anti-slavery  memorials  withdrawn — In  1839,  “referred  the  whole  subject  to 
the  Presbyteries” — In  1840,  “indefinitely  postponed” — “Vesuvius  capped  for 
three  years” — In  1843,  censured  Presbyteries  that  had  excluded  slaveholders — 
In  1S46,  declared  Slavery  unrighteous,  but  could  not  exclude  slaveholders — In 
1S49,  was  ignorant  of  any  blame  resting  on  its  slaveholding  members — In  1850, 
refused  to  call  slaveholding  “ an  offence  under  the  discipline” — “ Deplored  the 
workings  of  the  whole  system” — Again  “referred  it  to  the  Presbyteries” — And 
invited  the  “ Old-School”  Assembly  to  commune  with  them. 

Notwithstanding  the  testimony  of  the  Presbyterian  Church, 
in  1794,  that  it  is  “man-stealing”  to  “keep,  sell,  or  buy 
slaves,”  or  “ retain  men  in  slavery,”  yet  the  Church  contented 
itself  with  recording  its  doctrine  without  reducing  it  to  prac- 
tice. No  discipline  was  enforced,  and  the  custom  of  slave- 
holding, among  its  members  and  even  among  the  officers  of 
the  Church,  became  general,  in  the  slave  states. 

In  1815,  the  General  Assembly  declared  their  “approbation  of  the  prin- 
ciples of  civil  liberty,”  and  their  “ deep  concern  at  any  vestiges  of  slavery 
which  may  remain  in  our  country.”  This  is  theory.  In  practice,  they 
urge  the  lower  judicatures  to  prepare  the  young  slaves  “for  the  exercise  of 
liberty  when  God,  in  his  providence,  shall  open  a door  for  emancipation.” 


152 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


“ This  recommendation  is  an  implied  permission  to  their  slaveholding  mem-  ' 
bers  to  dismiss  all  thoughts  of  emancipation  at  present,  waiting  for  some 
colonization  opening,  or  some  undefined  providence  of  God.” — Statement 
of  Pres.  Blanchard  and  others , in  letter  to  Chr.  A.  S.  Convention  in  Cin- 
cinnati. 

In  1816,  the  General  Assembly,  while  it  called  slavery  a “ mournful 
evil,”  directed  an  erasure  of  the  note  (of  1794)  to  the  eighth  command- 
ment. 

“ In  1818,  it  adopted  an  ‘ expression  of  views’  in  which  slavery  is  called 
a ‘ gross  violation  of  the  most  precious  and  sacred  rights  of  human  nature, 
utterly  inconsistent  with  the  law  of  God,  which  requires  us  to  love  our 
neighbor  as  ourselves,  and  totally  irreconcilable  with  the  spirit  and  prin- 
ciples of  the  gospel  of  Christ,  which  enjoin  that  ‘ all  things  whatsoever  ye 
would  that  men  should  do  to  you,  do  ye  also  to  them.’  But,  instead  of 
requiring  the  instant  abandonment  of  this  ‘ gross  violation  of  rights,’  &c., 
the  Assembly  exhorts  the  violators  to  ‘ continue  and  increase  their  exertions 
to  effect  a total  abolition  of  slavery,  with  no  greater  delay  than  a regard  to 
the  public  welfare  demands,’  and  recommends,  that  if  ‘ a Christian  professor 
shall  sell  a slave,  who  is  also  in  communion  with  our  Church,’  without  the 
consent  of  the  slave,  the  seller  should  ‘ be  suspended  till  he  should  repent 
and  make  reparation.’”* 

The  effect  of  this  temporizing  and  procrastinating  policy 
was  precisely  such  as  might  have  been  anticipated.  The 
“ mournful  evil  ” only  struck  its  roots  deeper  under  such 
prtlning. 

In  1834,  the  Synod  of  Kentucky  adopted  a report  on 
slavery,  in  which  they  draw  a thrilling  picture  of  the  cruelties 
and  horrors  of  the  internal  slave  trade,  in  which  families  are 
forcibly  separated  from  each  other.  They  say  : 

“These  acts  are  daily  occurring  in  the  midst  of  us.”  “ There  is  not  a 
village  or  road  that  does  not  behold  the  sad  procession  of  manacled  outcasts, 
whose  chains  and  mournful  countenances  tell  that  they  are  exiled  by  force 
from  all  that  their  fiearts  hold  dear.  Our  church,  years  ago,  raised  its  voice 
of  solemn  warning  against  this  flagrant  violation  of  every  principle  of  mercy, 
justice,  and  humanity.  Yet  we  blush  to  announce  to  you,  that  this  warning 
has  been  often  disregarded,  even  by  those  who  hold  to  our  communion. 
Cases  have  occurred  in  our  own  denomination  where  professors  of  the  reli- 


* Vide  Amer.  Churches , &c.,  by  J.  G.  Birney,  to  whose  statement  we  have  added 
a further  extract  from  the  Expression  of  Views , as  republished  by  the  General  As- 
sembly in  1846.  ( Ch . In.,  April,  1846.) 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


153 


gion  of  mercy  have  torn  the  mother  from  the  children,  and  sent  her 
into  a merciless  and  returnless  exile.  Yet*acts  of  discipline  have 
rarely  [never!*]  followed  such  conduct.” 

But,  who  would  have  believed  it  ? — the  Synod  of  Ken- 
tucky were  not,  and  are  not,  in  favor  of  present  emancipation 
on  the  soil.  With  a knowledge  of  the  “ incontestible  fact  ” 
(as  Henry  Clay  calls  it),  that  the  internal  slave  trade  is  insep- 
arable from  slaverj7,  and  equally  aware,  as  they  must  be,  that 
no  removal  of  the  slaves  could  be  effected  in  a century,  the 
Synod  of  Kentucky,  and  its  leading  members,  who  tell  us  this 
sad  story,  are  unwilling  to  listen  to  any  proposal  for  emancipa- 
tion, without  the  colonization  of  the  slaves.  And  the  one  only 
Presbyterian  minister  within  their  bounds  who  advocated 
immediate  and  unconditional  emancipation  on  the  soil,  was 
given  to  understand  by  his  Presbytery,  that  he  could  not  con- 
sistently remain  with  them.f  The  Synod  has  fresh  cause  to 
“ blush” — but  it  will  need  something  besides  blushes  to  purge 
out  the  plague  spot.  To  “ confess ” avails  little,  unless  they 
u forsake.'’ 

In  1835,  Mr.  Stewart,  of  Illinois,  a ruling  elder,  in  advo- 
cating sundry  anti-slavery  memorials,  urged  the  General 
Assembly  to  take  action  on  the  subject.  He  said: 

“ In  this  church,  a man  may  take  a free-born  child,  force  it  away  from 
its  parents,  to  whom  God  gave  it  in  charge,  saying,  ‘ Bring  it  up  for  me,’ 
and  sell  it  as  a beast,  or  hold  it  in  perpetual  bondage,  and  not  only  escape 
corporal  punishment,  but  really  be  esteemed  an  excellent  Christian.  Nay, 
even  ministers  of  the  Gospel,  and  Doctors  of  Divinity,  may  engage  in  this 
unholy  traffic,  and  yet  sustain  their  high  and  holy  calling.” — “ Elders,  min- 
isters, and  Doctors  of  Divinity,  are,  with  both  hands,  engaged  in  the  prac- 
tice.” 

The  facts  were  not  disputed ; yet  nothing  was  done  to  cen- 
sure the  act  or  the  actors,  further  than  to  appoint  a committee, 
a majority  of  whom  were  known  to  be  opposed  to  the  prayer 
of  the  memorialists  (of  which  the  late  Dr.  Samuel  Miller, 


* J.  G.  Birney,  long  resident  in  Kentucky,  says  “ never.” 
t J.  G.  Fee. — The  intimation  was  heeded. 


154 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


Professor  at  Princeton,  was  chairman),  to  report  at  the  next 
session. 

In  1836,  this  report  was  presented  at  Pittsburg.  In  a pre- 
amble, it  is  said  that  “the  subject  of  slavery  is  inseparably 
connected  with  the  laws  of  many  of  the  States  of  this  Union, 
with  which  it  is  by  no  means  proper  for  an  ecclesiastical  body  to 
interfere ,*  and  that  “ any  action  on  the  part  of  this  Assembly, 
&c.,  would  tend  to  distract  and  divide  our  churches,”  &c. 
Resolutions  were  therefore  recommended  declaring  it  “ inex- 
pedient for  the  Assembly  to  take  any  further  order  in  relation 
to  this  subject also  affirming  that  the  note  on  the  eighth 
commandment,  in  1794,  was  “ introduced  irregularly — never 
had  the  sanction  of  the  church,  and  therefore  never  possessed 
any  authority,”  &c. 

A minority  of  the  committee,  Messrs.  Dickey  and  Beman,* 
presented  a report,  declaring  “ the  buying,  selling,  or  holding 
a human  being  as  property”  “a  heinous  sin,”  that  “ ought  to 
subject  the  doer  of  it  to  the  censures  of  the  church,”  &c.,  &c. ; 
whereupon  forty-eight  slaveholding  delegates  met  apart,  and 
resolved  that  if  any  such  action  was  taken  by  the  Assembly 
they  would  not  submit  to  the  decision.  They  also,  at  an 
adjourned  meeting,  prepared  a substitute  for  Dr.  Miller’s  reso- 
lution, declaring  that  “the  General  Assembly  have  no  author- 
ity to  assume  or  exercise  jurisdiction  in  regard  to  the  existence 
of  slavery.” 

The  subject  was  finally  disposed  of  by  a long  preamble  and 
a brief  resolution,  that  “ this  whole  subject  be  indefinitely 
postponed.” 

In  the  meantime,  while  the  Assembly  were  in  session,  a 
pamphlet,  being  a reprint  of  an  article  in  the  Princeton  Reper- 
tory , was  issued  from  the  Pittsburg  press,  labelled,  “ for  gra- 
tuitous circulation  ” among  the  members  of  the  Assembly.  It 
is  said  to  have  been  written  by  Prof.  Hodge,  of  Princeton, 


* Yet  the  funds  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  at  this  moment,  to  the  amount  of 
more  than  $94,000,  were  invested  in  the  South-Western  banks,  in  prospect  of  gain- 
ing more  than  6 per  cent,  interest,  on  account  of  the  unprecedented  briskness  of  the 
domestic  slave  trade.  For  the  sequel  see  a succeeding  Chapter. 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


155 


and  is  regarded  at  the  South  as  the  strongest  Bible  argument 
for  slavery.  It  contained  the  following  : 

“At  the  time  of  the  advent  of  Jesus  Christ,  slavery  in  its  worst  forms 
prevailed  over  the  world.  The  Savior  found  it  around  him  in  Judea,  the 
apostles  met  with  it  in  Asia,  Greece,  and  Italy.  How  did  they  treat  it  I 
Not  by  the  denunciation  of  slaveholding  as  necessarily  sinful.  The 
assumption  that  slaveholding  is,  in  itself,  a crime,  is  not  only  an  error,  but 
it  is  an  error  fraught  with  evil  consequences.” 

In  1837,  many  anti-slavery  memorials  were  presented  to  the 
Assembly.  They  were  referred  to  a committee,  of  which  Dr. 
Witherspoon,  a slaveholder,  of  South  Carolina,  was  chairman, 
and  which  reported,  near  the  time  for  adjournment,  that  the 
memorials  be  “ returned  to  the  house,”  and  the  chairman 
moved  to  lay  the  whole  subject  on  the  table.  This  was  done 
by  a vote  of  97  to  28. 

At  this  same  session  the  General  Assembly  excinded  four 
northern  Synods,  called  ISTew  School,  containing  a Presby- 
terian population  of  about  sixty  thousand  persons.  This  Avas 
done  ostensibty  on  account  of  theological  differences,  but  it  is 
remarkable  that  it  cut  off  a very  large  proportion  of  the  active 
opponents  of  slavery  in  the  communion  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church.  Dr.  G.  A.  Baxter,  President  of  the  Union  Theolo- 
gical Seminary,  Prince  Edward  Co.,  Va.,  changed  sides  sud- 
denly from  ISTew  School  to  Old,  about  the  same  time,  and 
justified  the  change  by  avowing  that  £‘  one  motive  ” was  the 
firm  position  of  the  Old  School  against  abolition.  And  since 
the  separation,  in  1838,  some  anti-abolition  clergyman,  once 
known  as  ISTew  School,  within  the  bounds  of  the  excinded 
Synods,  in  the  State  of  ISTeAv  York,  have  transferred  their 
relations  to  the  Old  School. 

OLD  SCHOOL  GENERAL  ASSEMBLY. 

“ In  1838,  the  two  Schools  separated,*  leaving  three  slaveholding  Presby- 

* The  separation  in  1838  is  understood  to  have  been  for  the  same  cause  as  tin 
excision  of  1837. 

According  to  a correspondent  of  the  New  York  Observer , Dr.  Gardiner  Spring,  of 
New  York,  at  a Colonization  Meeting  in  AVashington  City,  in  1839,  held  the  follow- 
ing language : 


156 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


teries  represented  in  the  New,  and  between  thirty  and  forty  in  the  Old.” — 
“ Since  that  time  the  Old  School  has  abode  firmly  on  the  Princeton  ground.” 

In  1838,  the  0.  S.  General  Assembly  resolved  that  “it  is 
of  the  greatest  consequence  to  the  best  interests  of  our  church, 
that  the  subject  of  slavery  shall  not  be  discussed  in  the  ensu- 
ing General  Assembly,”  &c. 

In  1848,  they  laid  anti-slavery  memorials  on  the  table  with- 
out reading. 

In  1845,  after  an  hour’s  discussion,  at  Cincinnati,  they 
adopted  a report  that  they  could  not  treat  slavery  as  necessa- 
rily a sin,  “ without  charging  the  apostles  of  Christ  with 
conniving  at  such  sin.”  “ For  the  Assembly  to  make  slave- 
holding a bar  to  communion  would  be  to  dissolve  itself.” — 
Vide  statements  of  Pres.  Blanchard  and  Cincinnati  Herald  of 
May  28,  1845  ; Chr.  Inv .,  June,  1847. 

In  1847,  the  General  Assembly  reaffirmed  all  its  former 
testimonies  on  slavery,  contradictory  as  they  were. 

In  1850,  in  reply  to  a resolution  of  the  General  Association 
of  Massachusetts  communicated  to  the  General  Assembly,  and 
very  courteously  expressing  their  conviction  that  the  cause 
of  religion  required  the  removal  of  slavery  from  the  churches, 
the' General  Assembly  adopted  the  following: 

Resolved , “ That  our  delegates  to  the  next  General  Association  of  Massa- 
chusetts be  directed  to  inform  that  venerable  body  that  this  General  Assem- 
bly must  consider  itself  the  best  judge  of  the  action  which  it  is  necessary 
for  it  to  take  as  to  all  subjects  within  its  jurisdiction,  and  that  any  interfer- 
ence on  the  part  of  that  General  Association  with  its  action  upon  any  subject 
upon  which  this  General  Assembly  has  taken  action,  is  offensive,  and  must 
lead  to  an  interruption  of  the  correspondence  which  subsists  between  that 
Association  and  the  General  Assembly.” — Oberlin  Evan.,  June  19,  1850. 

From  the  Old  School  we  now  turn  to  the  New. 


“ He  stated. that  the  unhappy  divisions  in  the  Presbyterian  Church  had  grown  out 
of  this  opposition”  (i.  e.  to  “ the  proceedings  and  designs  of  the  Abolition  Society”), 
“ and,  painful  as  it  was,  they  were  obliged  to  rend  the  church  to  avoid  being  engulfed 
in  the  sentiments,  feelings,  and  schemes  of  abolitionists.” 

At  other  times,  the  ground  of  division  had  been  stated  to  be  the  heresy  of  “ New 
School”  theology,  and  tendencies  towards  Congregational  Church  government  in  the 
New  School  portion  of  the  Presbyterian  Church. 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


157 


NEW-SCHOOL  GENERAL  ASSEMBLY. 

“ In  1838,  the  New-School  General  Assembly  appointed  a committee  on 
anti-slavery  memorials,  which  reported  ‘ that  the  applicants,  for  reasons 
satisfactory  to  themselves,  have  withdrawn  their  papers.’  The  committee 
was  discharged.” — Birney's  American  Churches , &c.,  p.  33. 

The  excuse  was,  that  business  connected  with  the  division 
of  the  two  assemblies  made  it  difficult  to  attend  to  another 
subject. 

“ In  1839,  it  referred  the  whole  subject  to  the  Presbyteries,  to  do  what 
they  might  deem  advisable.” 

In  1840,  a large  number  of  memorials  and  petitions  against  slavery  were 
sent  in,  and  referred  to  the  usual  committee.  The  committee  reported  a 
resolution — referring  to  what  had  been  done  last  year* — declaring  it  inex- 
pedient for  the  Assembly  to  do  anything  further  on  the  subject.  Several 
attempts  were  made  by  the  abolition  members  of  the  Assembly  to  obtain  a 
decided  expression  of  its  views,  but  they  proved  ineffectual,  and  the  whole 
subject  wras  indefinitely  postponed.” — lb. 

This  measure  was  adopted  on  motion  of  “Rev.  Samuel  H.  Cox,  D.D., 
of  the  city  of  Brooklyn  (N.  Y.)  On  the  motion  being  carried,  he  exult- 
ingly  said  : “ Our  Vesuvius  is  safely  capped  for  three  years” — the  Assembly 
not  meeting  again  till  1843. — lb. 

“ In  1843,  the  General  Assembly  censured  the  action  of  those  anti- 
slavery Presbyteries  which  had  excluded  slaveholding  from  their  pulpits 
and  communion  tables,  and  requested  them  to  rescind  their  acts  ; thus  con- 
demning them  for  obeying  their  own  advice,  or  excluding  slaveholding  from 
fellowship.” — Letter  of  Pres.  Blanchard , &c. 

In  1816,  the  General  Assembly  adopted  a paper  drawn  up 
by  Dr.  Duffield,  declaring  the  unrighteous  and  oppressive 
character  of  slavery,  lamenting  its  continued  existence  in  the 
churches,  exhorting  to  the  use  of  all  means  in  their  power  to 
put  it  away  from  them,  since  no  mere  mitigation  of  its  severity 
“would  be  regarded  as  a testimony  against  the  system,  or  as, 
in  the  least  degree,  changing  its  essential  character.” 

After  all  this,  the  Assembly,  nevertheless,  at  the  same  time, 


* The  language  employed,  either  in  1839  or  ’40,  we  believe,  was  this : “ Solemnly 
referring  the  whole  subject  to  the  lower  judicatories,  to  take  such  action  as  in  their 
judgment  is  most  judicious  and  adapted  to  remove  the  evil" — refusing  the  request 
of  Rev.  Geo.  Beecher  to  insert  the  word  moral  before  evil ; that  is,  they  refused  to 
call  slavery  a moral  evil. — Vide  letter  of  Pres.  Blanchard  and  others. 


158 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


proceeded  to  saj  that  it  “ cannot  determine  the  degree  of  moral  ■ 
turpitude  involved” — “ cannot  pronounce  a judgment  of  general 
and  promiscuous  condemnation,” — it  recognizes  “embarrass- 
ments and  obstacles  in  the  way  of  emancipation  ” — it  cannot 
“ exclude  slaveholders  from  the  table  of  the  Lord  ” — it  would 
rather  “ sympathize  with  and  succor  them  in  their  embarrass- 
ments — it  condemns  all  divisive  and  schismatic  measures 
tending  to  destroy  the  unity,  and  disturb  the  peace  of  our  Church.'" 
The  “ Assembly  possesses  no  legislative  or  judicial  authority;” 
it  must,  therefore,  “ leave  it  with  the  Sessions , Presbyteries , and 
Synods ,”  &c.,  &c. ! — Vide  Chr.  Inv.,  June , 1817. 

The  confusion,  incongruity,  and  self-contradiction  of  this 
action,  can  hardly  escape  notice,  even  when  our  attention  is 
confined  to  the  doings  of  this  one  session.  Slavery  is  charac- 
terized as  unrighteous  and  oppressive ; but  this  unrighteous- 
ness and  oppression  must  not  be  promiscuously  condemned, 
nor  excluded  from  the  table  of  the  Lord,  lest  it  should  destroy 
the  unity  and  disturb  the  peace  of  the  Church. 

Still  more  confused,  incongruous,  and  self-contradictory 
does  the  action  of  the  General  Assembly  appear,  when  the 
doings  of  one  session,  in  one  year,  are  compared  with  those  of 
another.  In  1839,  the  whole  subject  was  referred  to  the  Pres- 
byteries ; in  1813,  the  Presbyteries  were  censured  for  acting, 
and  requested  to  rescind  their  acts;  but  in  1816  the  subject 
was  again  referred  to  the  Presbyteries.  In  1816,  as  in  1839, 
the  Assembly  possessed  no  legislative  or  judicial  authority  ; 
but  in  1813  its  powers  appear  to  have  been  ample.  The  true 
solution  seems  to  be  that  the  Assembly  has  no  power  against 
slavery,  but  claims  and  exercises  power  in  its  favor.  It  could 
not  censure  slavery,  but  it  could  censure  Presbyteries  by 
whom  slavery  is  censured.  It  could  go  further  than  this, 
and  restore  to  his  former  standing,  a minister  (Dr.  Graham) 
who,  in  1815,  had  been  suspended  by  his  Presbytery  (acting 
on  recommendation  of  the  Assembly,)  for  defending  slavery 
by  the  Bible.*  This  was  done  in  1816,  or  afterwards. 


* He  maintained  that  Jesus  Christ  “ has  authorized  slaveholding,  in  the  charters 
of  the  Church,  and  in  all  the  laws  he  ever  made,  for  its  regulation.” 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


159 


Tlie  General  Assembly  of  1846  also  invited  the  Old  School 
General  Assembly,  then  sitting  in  the  same  city,  to  unite  with 
them  in  a celebration  of  the  Lord’s  Supper,  but  the  invitation 
was  declined,  and  the  Old  School  Assembly  bears  the  blame 
of  the  “ schism.” 

Thus  does  the  Presbyterian  New  School,  like  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  North,  by  a fair  implication,  profess  that 
slavery  is  not  to  be  regarded  as  a sufficient  cause  of  division, 
or  a bar  against  Christian  communion.  This  will  further  ap- 
pear as  we  proceed. 

In  1849,  the  General  Assembly,  in  strange  forgetfulness, 
one  would  think,  of  the  facts  conceded  or  implied  in  its  testi- 
mony of  1846,  declared : 

“ That  there  has  been  no  information  before  this  Assembly  to  prove  that 
the  members  of  our  Church,  in  the  slave  States,  are  not  doing  all  they  can 
(situated  as  they  are,  in  the  providence  of  God)  to  bring  about  the  posses- 
sion and  enjoyment  of  liberty  by  the  enslaved.” — Copied  from  Letter  of 
Pres.  Blanchard , &c. 

The  slaveholders  could,  at  any  time,  if  the}7  pleased,  give 
their  slaves  a “pass”  into  the  Free  States,  which,  in  most 
cases,  would  not  only  be  eagerly  accepted,  but  carried  into 
operation  with  little  or  no  expense  or  trouble  to  the  masters, 
to  say  nothing  of  the  practicability,  in  Kentucky,  &c.,  of  ma- 
king them  legally  free  on  the  soil. 

In  1850,  the  General  Assembly,  (no  longer  triennial,'17)  came 
together  again,  and  after  a long  discussion,  during  which  a 
number  of  propositions  for  acting  against  slavery  were  rejected, 
settled  down  upon  a declaration  very  closely  resembling  that 
of  1846,  so  far  as  direct  action  by  the  General  Assembly  is 
concerned. 

Among  the  propositions  rejected,  one,  presented  by  “Rev. 


* In  1S49,  overtures  were  sent  down  to  the  Presbyteries  in  favor  of  making  the 
General  Assemblies  annual  again,  instead  of  triennial,  and  in  1850,  on  their  coming 
together,  the  answers  being  favorable,  the  constitution  was  changed  back  again, 
making  the  meetings  henceforth  annual.  The  policy  of  having  triennial  conven- 
tions had  answered  its  purpose,  there  being  now  no  fires  in  the  “ Vesuvius”  to 
threaten  an  explosion. 


160 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


H.  Curtiss  of  Indiana,”  was,  “That  the  enslaving  of  men,  or 
the  holding  of  them  as  property,  is  an  offence,  as  defined  in 
our  Book  of  Discipline,  Chap.  I.,  Sec.  3,  and  that  as  such,  it 
calls  for  inquiry,  correction,  and  removal,  in  the  manner  pre- 
scribed by  our  rules,  and  should  be  treated  with  a due  regard 
to  all  the  aggravating  or  mitigating  circumstances  of  each  par- 
ticular case  ” — also,  “ that  this  General  Assembly,  in  the  ex- 
ercise of  its  power  of  bearing  testimony  against  immorality  in 
practice,  and  “of  attempting  reformation  of  manners,  and  the 
promotion  of  charity,  truth,  and  holiness,  through  all  the 
churches  under  their  care,’  do  most  earnestly  recommend  to 
the  proper  judicatories  to  take  measures  in  accordance  with 
the  foregoing  principles.” 

This  would  seem  sufficiently  mild  and  guarded,  if  the  As- 
sembly had  been  willing  to  meet  directly,  the  sin,  in  any  way 
of  effective  reproof. 

Equally  so  was  another  proposition  presented  by  P.  F. 
Smith,  an  Elder,  from  Pennsylvania,  affirming  that  slavehold- 
ing was  “ prima  facia  an  offence  within  the  meaning  of  our 
Book  of  Discipline,”  and  throwing  upon  the  slaveholder  “ the 
burden  of  showing  such  circumstances,”  as  “ will  take  away 
from  him  the  guilt  of  the  offence.” 

The  rejection  of  these  propositions  will  assist  the  reader  to 
a better  understanding  of  the  propositions  adopted  by  the 
Assembly,  the  most  pointed  of  which  was  the  following  : 

That  slavery  “is  fraught  with  many  and  great  evils."  That  they 
“ deplore  the  workings*  of  the  whole  system  of  slavery,”  and  that  “ the 
holding  of  our  fellow-men  in  the  condition  of  slavery,  except  in  those  cases 
where  it  is  unavoidable  by  the  laws  of  the  State,  the  obligations  of  guardian- 
ship, or  the  demands  of  humanity , is  an  offence  in  the  proper  import  of  that 
term,  as  used  in  the  Book  of  Discipline,  Chap.  I.,  Sec.  3,  and  should  be 
regarded  and  treated  in  the  same  manner  as  other  offences.”  Also  referring 
the  subject  to  the  “ Sessions  and  Presbyteries,  &c.” 


* In  1846,  the  General  Assembly  had  called  slavery  “ unrighteous.”  Having 
failed  to  purge  away  this  “ unrighteousness,”  it  must,  in  1850,  he  spoken  of  in  milder 
terms.  It  is  only  an  “evil,”  the  “ workings”  of  which  are  “ deplorable.”  Among 
its  “ deplorable  workings”  should  be  reckoned  its  power  to  neutralize  and  alter  the 
moral  creed  of  the  church. 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


161 


The  exceptions  above  specified  Will  be  found  to  embrace 
the  very  excuses  in  view  of  which  all  slaveholders  continue 
the  practice,  except  those  who  justify  slavery  “ in  the  abstract,  ” 
and  consider  it  a blessing  instead  of  an  evil. 

Even  this  action,  however,  was  strenuously  opposed. 

“ The  vote  stood  84  to  16,  under  a written  protest  of  the  minority  who 
were  for  no  action,  in  the  present  state  of  the  country.  Two  were  excused 
from  voting.’'' — N.  Y.  Observer,  June  15,  1850. 

The  adoption  of  even  this  evasive  testimony  is  to  be  con- 
strued in  the  light  of  the  following  action,  by  the  same  body, 
at  the  same  session,  by  which,  after  this  idle  show  of  threaten- 
ing some  sorts  of  slaveholders  with  Church  discipline,  the  New 
School  General  Assembly  eagerly  throws  its  arms  of  embrace 
around  all  sorts  of  slaveholders  in  the  Old  School  Assembly, 
including  slavery  propagandists,  extensionists,  slave  sellers, 
and  all.  A statement  was  unanimously  adopted,  of  which  the 
following  is  the  substance  : 

This  Assembly  cherished  the  idea  of  re-union,  (with  the  Old  School 
Assembly,)  until  1841,  when  it  was  reluctantly  relinquished.  “ Again,  in 
1846  they  expressed  the  desire  for  union  with  our  brethern,  and,  pained  by 
the  unusual  exhibition  of  two  such  bodies,  at  apparent  strife  with  each  other, 
they  proposed  to  the  other  Assembly,  a mutual  recognition  of  each  other,  by 
communing  together  at  the  table  of  our  Master.”  “ These  propositions  and 
overtures  were  all  made  in  good  faith.”  “ We  do  not  pretend  to  question 
the  motives  of  our  brethren  in  rejecting  them.” 

Declining,  under  these  circumstances,  to  make  any  new  overtures,  the 
Report  and  the  Assembly,  say  : 

“We  should  be  untrue  to  ourselves,  before  God  and  the  world,  did  we  not 
frankly  avow  our  readiness  to  meet  in  a spirit  of  fraternal  kindness  and 
Christian  love,  any  overtures  which  may  be  made  to  us  by  the  other  body.” 
— See  N.  Y.  Observer,  June  15,  1850. 

Thus,  then,  “ before  God  and  the  world,”  the  New  School 
General  Assembly  of  1850  “unanimously”  declared  itself 
ready  to  commune  with  the  Old  School,  at  a time  when  the 
great  body  of  Old  School  Presbyterians  at  the  South  were 
zealous  for  the  extension  of  slavery,  claimed  of  the  Federal 
Government  its  extension  as  an  act  of  justice,  and  defended  it 

11 


162 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


as  a Bible  institution. — See  letter  of  a Southern  Clergyman  in  ■ 
New  York  Observer , same  date  as  the  above. 

The  discriminating  reader  will  now  judge  for  himself  re- 
specting the  moral  difference  between  the  Old  School  and  the 
New,  in  their  relations  to  slavery.  The  one  has  more  slave- 
holders under  its  jurisdiction  than  the  other,  but  both  tolerate  | 
the  practice.*  The  one  does  this  to  retain  many  members ; 
the  other  to  retain  a few.  The  one  does  it  believing  slavery 
to  be  a Bible  institution  ; the  other,  believing  it  to  be  “ un- 
righteous” and  “oppressive.”  The  one  makes  no  pretence 
of  any  intention  to  discipline  any  sort  of  slaveholders ; the 
other  holds  the  rod  over  a class  of  them  that  it  “ has  no  infor- 
mation ” of  being  found  within  its  enclosures,  but  yearns  to 
go  out  of  its  boundaries  to  clasp  them  to  its  bosom. 

In  1851,  the  General  Assembly  met  at  Utica,  New  York. 

It  declined  to  take  action  against  slavery,  and  won  the  com- 
mendation of  President  Fillmore,  who  expressed  to  some 
members  of  the  Assembly  his  high  gratification  with  the  pro- 
ceedings. 


* The  following  statement  is  from  a lecture  by  Pres.  Blanchard,  as  reported  in  the, 
Cleveland  True  Democrat  of  Sept.  26,  1851 : 

“ The  Old  School  branch  has  now  fifty  slaveholding  Presbyteries;  n.ore  than  one- 
third  of  its  whole  number. 

“ The  New  School  Assembly,  at  its  first  separate  meeting,  in  1838,  was  followed 
by  but  three  slaveholding  commissioners,  and  there  was  fervent  prayer  and  strong 
hope  that  this  might  become  an  anti-slavery  body.  But  once  separated  from  the  Old 
School,  and  seized  by  the  natural  desire  for  denominational  success,  its  has  steadily 
increased  its  slaveholding  wing  till  it  has  now  twenty  slaveholding  Presbyteries, 
between  one  and  two  hundred  ministers,  and  from  fifteen  to  twenty  thousand  mem- 
bers, in  the  slave  States,  all  walking  in  Christian  fellowship  with  slaveholders. 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


163 


CHAPTER  XIV. 

POSITION  OF  THE  AMERICAN  CHURCHES,  ETC.  CONTINUED. 

HI. — CONGREGATIONALISTS. 

Connection  with  Presbyterians  and  the  South — Pro-slavery  Sermons — Prof.  Stuart — 
Andover  Theo.  Seminary — General  Association  of  Connecticut,  1834,  1S36,  1840, 
1845 — Rejected  Resolutions  compared  with  Resolutions  Adopted — General  Asso. 
of  Massachusetts,  1834,  1837,  1849 — Convention  of  Cong.  Ministers,  1848 — Gen. 
Conf.  of  Maine — Cong.  Periodicals,  N.  E.  Spectator,  Vermont  Chronicle. 

Congregationalists,  like  Baptists,  are  subject  to  the  con- 
rol  of  no  ecclesiastical  body,  holding  jurisdiction  over  the 
vhole  country.  Unlike  Baptists,  Presbyterians,  and  Metho- 
lists,  they  number  no  churches,  or  none  sufficient  to  deserve 
lotice,  in  the  present  slaveholding  States.  They  claim  to  be, 
mphatically,  the  descendants  and  successors  of  the  Puritans, 
nd  of  that  particular  branch  of  them  whose  democratic  polity 
•ave  origin  to  the  free  institutions — so  far  as  they  are  free — 
f republican  America.  Congregationalists  have  had,  more- 
ver,  the  chief  influence  in  moulding  the  religious  and  moral 
sntiment  of  New  England ; they  have  their  central  home  and 
eat  in  the  birth-place  of  Hopkins  and  Edwards,  the  scene  of 
deir  agitating  anti-slavery  labors,  in  the  atmosphere  of  a theo- 
igical  literature  enriched  by  those  luminaries,  and  still  cher- 
hed  in  the  churches  as  a badge  of  honorable  distinction, 
'heoretically,  they  are,  for  the  most  part,  or  claim  to  be,  of 
le  same  creed  or  phase  of  religious  faith,  the  very  technicali- 
es  of  which  are  identified  with  the  most  uncompromising  of 
1 schemes  of  ethics,  allowing  no  palliatives  of  transgression, 
o exceptions  to  the  demand  of  immediate  and  unconditional 


164 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN- 


abandonment  of  all  sin.  Assuredly,  then,  CongregationalistS- 
can  have  no  valid  excuse,  if  they  are  not  foremost  in  their 
opposition  to  slavery.  Of  those  to  whom  much  is  given  shall 
much  be  required. 

But  CongregationalistS,  through  their  Associations  of  Min- 
isters, have  held  regular  correspondence  and  close  affinity  with 
Presbyterians  ; have  received  delegates  from  the  General  As- 
sembly, and  sent  delegates  to  them.  Congregational  ministers 
removing  out  of  New  England,  have  readily  become  Presby- 
terian. And  Presbyterian  ministers  have  been  received  as 
pastors  of  Congregational  churches.  Congregationalism  in 
Connecticut  has  been  so  modified  as  to  be  claimed  by  Presby- 
terian writers  as  being  virtually  Presbyterian.  In  the  Middle 
and  Northwestern  States,  a “plan  of  accommodation,”  so 
called,  has  brought  churches  claiming  to  be  Congregational 
into  connection  with  the  Presbyteries.  In  all  these  ways,  as 
well  as  by  missionary  co-operation,  by  plans  and  processes  of 
ministerial  education,  as  well  as  by  similarity  of  creed,  and 
identity  of  rituals  and  forms  of  public  worship,  the  cord  of; 
sympathy  and  the  bond  of  unity  between  CongregationalistS 
and  Presbyterians  have  been  strengthened.  Congregational 
ministers,  educated  in  New  England,  transferred  to  the  Presby- 
terian church,  and  located,  by  the  enterprising  spirit  of  New 
England  emigration,  in  the  slaveholding  States,  have  often  be- 
come slaveholders  themselves,  and  defenders  or  apologists  of 
the  slave  system,  and  commonly  without  forfeiting  their  reli 
gious  character  or  ecclesiastical  standing  with  their  friends 
and  relatives  in  New  England.*  The  same  spirit  of  emigra- 


* The  following  statement,  made  by  “Rev.  A.  H.  H.  Boyd,  of  Virginia,”  in  tin 
New  School  General  Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  in  1850,  has  a bearing 
quite  as  appropriate  and  significant  upon  uorthern  CongregationalistS,  as  upoi 
northern  Presbyterians : 

“ In  the  Southern  country  we  depend  upon  the  north  for  ministers,  in  a greaj 
measure.  Few  of  our  Southern  young  men  are  educated  for  ministers.  In  soint 
parts  it  is  necessary  that  some  born  South  should  endorse  a minister,  before  com 
mencing  his  labor,  because  some  have  endeavored  to  loosen  the  relation  of  inaste: 
and  slave.” — N.  Y.  Observer,  June  15,  1850. 

A similar  remark  would  apply  to  schoolmasters,  only  that  there  is,  perhaps,  les 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


165 


tion,  and  especially  the  habit  of  temporary  sojourn,  or  resi- 
dence, as  school  teachers,  or  as  commercial  adventurers,  in 
the  slaveholding  States,  has  drawn  large  numbers  of  Congre- 
gational laymen  into  close  sympathy  with  Presbyterian  slave 
holders  at  the  South,  with  whom  they  have  worshipped.  Be- 
coming comparatively  wealthy,  and ' returning  home  to  the 
North,  to  settle  for  life,  not  a few  of  them,  though  preferring 
for  their  own  comfort  a residence  in  a free  State,  have  lost 
their  abhorrence  of  the  sin  of  slavery,  and  have  exerted  a 
wide  and  strong  influence  in  favor  of  a religious  fraternity 
with  slaveholders.  Intermarriages  between  slaveholding  and 
non-slaveholding  families,  commercial  intercourse,  and  politi- 
cal co-operation,  are  thrown  into  the  same  scale. 

Congregationalists  in  New  England,  as  well  as  other  mem- 
bers of  churches,  and  perhaps  to  a greater  extent  than  in  most 
ether  sects  at  the  North,  as  being  most  numerous  and  enter- 
prising, have  been  subjected  to  influences  of  this  character. 
Besides  all  this,  Congregational  ministers  in  New  England, 
ilong  with  other  gentlemen  of  the  learned  professions,  (who 
vere  then  chiefly  members  of  congregational  churches,)  con- 
stituted a large  portion  of  the  few  who  were  slaveholders, 
luring  the  existence  of  slavery  in  the  Northern  and  Eastern 
States,  there  being  few,  then,  in  New  England,  of  other  reli- 
gious sects,  thus  making  that  denomination  responsible  for  a 
fery  great  portion  of  all  the  slaveholding  that  ever  existed  in 
dew  England.  And  there  is  no  reason  to  think  that  all  of 
hese  slaveholding  Congregationalists,  whether  laymen  or 
ninisters,  ever  welcomed  heartily  and  fully  the  radical  views 
f Hopkins  and  Edwards  on  this  subject,  or  ceased  to  become 
laveholders  until  slaveholding  became  impracticable  under 
he  State  laws. 

It  would  be  idle  to  suppose  that  facts  like  these  would  be 
without  their  significance  and  bearing  in  that  general  decline 


alousy  of  them.  Schoolmasters  and  ministers  for  the  South  have  heen  reckoned 
nong  the  staple  exports  of  New  England,  and  they  are  commonly  adapted  to  the 
arket.  Can  the  Congregational  churches  of  New  England,  which  supply  a large 
tare  of  these  teachers  of  religion  and  literature,  he  uninfluenced  by  such  facts? 


166 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


of  the  spirit  of  liberty  already  noticed,  or  that  they  could  fail ' 
to  affect  the  position  of  the  Congregational  ministers  and 
churches  of  New  England,  on  the  opening  of  the  present  anti- 
slavery contest. 

The  distribution  of  the  Princeton  pamphlet  among  the 
members  of  the  Presbyterian  General  Assembly,  at  Pittsburg, 
in  1836,  before  mentioned,  was  the  beginning  of  a series  of 
similar  demonstrations  among  clergymen  at  the  North,  not 
excepting  Congregational  ministers  in  New  England,  from 
whom  at  least  three  printed  sermons  in  biblical  defence  or 
palliation  of  slavery  appeared  not  long  afterwards.  They 
were  echoes  of  the  Princeton  doctrine,  not  marked  with  any 
unusual  force  of  reasoning;  and,  not  coming  from  sources 
particularly  suited  to  arrest  attention,  they  produced  no  very 
deep,  general,  or  permanent  impression.  The  most  remark- 
able thing  in  respect  to  them  was,  that  they  procured  for  their 
authors  no  such  ecclesiastical  disclaimers,  in  the  proceedings 
of  their  respective  associations  und  consociations,  as  those 
with  which  the  doctrines  or  measures  of  abolitionists  in  the 
same  ecclesiastical  connections  were  so  bountifully  visited 
about  the  same  time.  If  not  fully  approved,"  they  were  not 
accounted  so  heretical  as  to  deserve  the  notice  that  would 
have  been  given  to  any  departure  from  their  recognized  the- 
ological standards.  The  same  doctrine  from  Dr.  Graham, 
some  years  afterwards,  was  branded  as  a heresy  by  the  Pres- 
byterian Synod  of  Cincinnati.  But  in  1836  it  does  not  appear  | 
to  have  been  regarded  as  “ heresy,”  by  the  Congregational 
bodies  in  New  England,  whatever  may  be  supposed  to  have 
been  the  prevalent  sentiment  among  them. 

Nor  can  it  be  said  that  any  remarkable  improvement  was 
perceptible  in  1837.  In  that  year  an  occasion  presented  itsell 
for  remonstrating  against  the  heresy  of  biblical  human  chat- 
telhood,  had  it  been  accounted  a heresy,  as  promulgated  from 
a quarter  that  could  not  be  accounted  too  obscure  to  require 
notice. 

Moses  Stuart,  Professor  in  the  Theological  Seminary  al 
Andover,  Mass.,  stood  then,  and  for  many  years  afterwards. 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


167 


at  the  very  head  of  the  department  of  sacred  literature  among 
the  Congregationalists  in  New  England.  To  him , more  than 
to  any  other  man  living  at  that  time,  and  while  he  held  his 
professorship,  were  biblical  students  of  the  Congregational 
order  encouraged  to  look  up  for  solid  instruction  in  the 
science  of  expounding  the  Scriptures.  What  he  might  say 
concerning  the  teachings  of  the  Bible  on  the  subject  of  slavery 
would  be  likely  to  exert,  at  least,  as  powerful  an  influence 
among  Congregationalists  as  the  expressed  opinions  of  any 
other  man. 

The  late  Dr.  Fisk,  then  President  of  the  Wesleyan  Univer- 
sity, at  Middletown,  Conn.,  whose  views  of  slavery  the  reader 
has  seen  in  our  account  of  the  position  of  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church,  addressed  a letter  to  Prof.  Stuart,  designed  to 
draw  out,  for  publication,  his  views  of  the  slave  question. 
The  following  is  an  extract  from  Prof.  Stuart’s  answer: 

“1.  The  precepts  of  the  New  Testament  respecting  the  demeanor  of  slaves 
and  of  their  masters,  beyond  all  question  recognize  the  existence  of  slavery. 
The  masters  are,  in  part,  1 believing  masters,’  so  that  a precept  to  them,  how 
they  are  to  behave,  as  masters , recognizes  that  the  relation  may  exist,  salva 
fide,  et  salva  ecclesia.*  Otherwise,  Paul  had  nothing  to  do  but  to  cut  the 
bond  asunder  at  once.  He  could  not  lawfully  and  properly  temporize  with 
a malum  in  se.f 

“ If  any  one  doubts,  let  him  take  the  case  of  Paul’s  sending  Onesimus 
back  to  Philemon,  with  an  apology  for  his  running  away,  and  sending  him 
back  to  be  a servant  for  life.  The  relation  did  exist,  may  exist.  The  abuse 
of  it  is  the  essential  and  fundamental  wrong.  Not  that  the  theory  of  slavery 
is,  in  itself,  right.  No.  ' Love  thy  neighbor  as  thyself’ — ‘ Do  unto  others 
that  which  ye  would  that  others  should  do  unto  you,’  decide  against  this. 
But  the  relation  once  constituted  and  continued,  is  not  such  a malum  in  se 
as  calls  for  immediate  and  violent  disrupture,  at  all  hazards.  So  Paul  did 
not  counsel. 

“2.  1 Tim.  6 : 2,  expresses  the  sentiment  that  slaves  who  are  Christians, 
and  have  Christian  masters,  are  not,  on  that  account,  and  because,  as  Chris- 
tians they  are  brethren , to  forego  the  reverence  due  to  them  as  masters. 
That  is,  the  relation  of  master  and  slave  is  not,  as  a matter  of  course,  abro- 
gated between  all  Christians.  Nay,  servants  should,  in  such  a case, 


* i.  e.  “ Without  violating  the  Christian  faith,  or  the  Church' 
t i.  e.  That  which  is,  in  itself,  sin. 


168 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


a fortiori,  do  their  duty  cheerfully.  This  sentiment  lies  on  the  very  face 
of  the  case.  W hat  the  master’s  duty  in  such  a case,  in  respect  to  libera- 
tion, is  another  question,  and  one  which  the  apostle  does  not  here  treat  of.” 

Learned  men  are  not  always  wise.  Beneficial  as  the  science 
of  biblical  exigesis  may  be,  when  needed,  and  when  directed 
by  Christian  simplicity  and  manly  common  sense,  it  can  never 
be  otherwise  than  powerless,  except  for  mischief,  when  wielded 
either  without  or  against  them,  or  when  used  to  mystify  and 
perplex  what  is  already  plain.  Aside  from  such  glosses  as 
those  just  now  quoted,  and  in  the  absence  of  the  iniquitous 
practices  that  gave  rise  to  them,  no  simple-minded  reader  of 
the  New  Testament  would  ever  have  detected  in  the  passages 
commented  upon,  the  slightest  sanction  of  such  usages  as 
those  that  go  to  define  modern  slaveholding.  The  art,  most 
assuredly,  is  not  a desirable  one,  that  could  thus  torture  and 
invert  the  plain  import  of  Paul’s  Letter  to  Philemon.  In  this 
instance,  the  beautiful  and  affectionate  dissuasive  of  “ Paul 
the  aged  ” against  the  too  rigid  exaction  of  an  honest  debt, 
voluntarily  assumed,  is  transmuted  into  an  apostolic  warranty 
and  example  for  the  rendition  of  fugitive  slaves.  This  result 
could  not  be  reached  without  a palpable  and  direct  falsifica- 
tion of  the  text;  which  says,  “ Eeceive  him”' — “ Not  now  as 
a servant,  but  above  a servant,  a brother  beloved,”  “ both 
in  the  flesh,  and  in  the  Lord :” — a brother,  in  the  secular  as 
well  as  the  religious  acceptation  of  the  term.  Instead  of  this, 
the  apostle  is  represented  as  “sending  him  back  to  be  a ser- 
vant for  life.”  Onesimus  was  not  a slave,  for  a slave  can 
make  no  contract  and  incur  no  debt.  Yet  Paul  entreated 
(what  he  says  he  might  have  enjoined  by  authority),  that  the 
obligation  should  be  cancelled.  But  whatever  we  consider 
to  be  the  relation  between  the  parties,  the  entire  drift  of  the 
epistle  was  evidently  to  induce  a change,  and  not  a continu- 
ance, of  the  relation. 

In  his  exposition  of  1 Tim.  6 : 2,  the  learned  writer  coolly 
took  for  granted  the  very  gist  of  the  controversy,  by  assuming 
that  the  word  rendered  “master”  is  equivalent  to  “slave- 
holder,” and  that  there  could  have  been  no  “servants”  but 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


169 


“ slaves.”  It  had  often  been  shown  that  this  was  not  the  fact, 
but  the  Professor  takes  no  notice  of  this,  and  makes  no  attempt 
to  prove  or  show  the  contrary. 

It  would  be  difficult  to  reconcile  Prof.  Stuart  with  himself, 
or  with  the  plain  dictates  of  the  Christian  religion  and  of 
common  sense,  which  the  learned  and  the  unlearned  can 
equally  understand.  The  following  propositions  and  results 
will  be  found  involved  in  his  statements : 

“The  theory  of  slavery  is  not,  in  itself,  right;”  but  the  prac- 
tice of  slavery  is  not,  in  itself,  wrong. 

The  law  of  love  and  the  golden  rule  decide  the  question  of 
slavery  one  way,  but  Paul’s  advice  to  servants  and  masters, 
and  his  sending  back  Onesimus,  decide  it  the  other  way. 

The  relation  may  exist  without  violating  Christianity  or 
the  Church,  but  the  relation  is  founded  in  a theory  that  is 
not,  in  itself,  right ; in  other  words,  Christianity  and  the 
Church  are  not  violated  by  the  opposite  of  moral  right. 

The  “ abuse'’  of  the  relation  “is  the  fundamental  and  essen- 
tial wrong  ” but  the  relation  itself  cannot  claim  its  origin  in 
moral  right. 

The  relation,  though  not  founded  in  moral  right , when 
“ once  constituted'’  is  not  a moral  wrong. 

Paul  “could  not  temporize  with”  what  was  wrong  in 
itself ; but  he  would  not  “ cut  asunder  at  once  ” the  bond  of 
a relation  that  was  the  opposite  of  moral  right. 

And  while  the  Professor  decides  promptly  that  Paul  would 
not  do  this,  he  confesses  he  cannot  tell  what  Paul  would  say 
of  “ the  duty  of  the  master  in  respect  to  liberation  ’’  because  that 
question  was  “ one  of  which  the  apostle  does  not  here 
treat  of.” 

“ The  duty  of  the  master  in  respect  to  liberation  ” was  the 
very  question  that  then  agitated  the  country.  It  was  because 
abolitionists  insisted  upon  this  “ duty,”  that  they  were  opposed 
and  censured,  and  the  pen  of  Prof.  Stuart  was  invoked  to 
counteract  their  influence.  To  this  end  he  controverted  their 
doctrine,  that  slaveholding  is  sinful.  If  not  sinful,  who  could 
urge  upon  them  the  “ duty”  of  giving  up  the  practice?  But, 


170 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 

after  all,  it  is  conceded  that  Paul  was  not  treating  of  the  duty  • I 
of  liberation,  and  Prof.  Stuart  does  not  know  what  he  would 
have  said  on  that  subject. 

Then  Paul  was  not  treating  of  the  lawfulness  or  unlawful- 
ness of  slaveholding: — he  was  not  treating  on  the  question 
whether  “ the  relation  of  master  and  slave  ” was  “ abrogated 
among  Christians.”  If  Prof.  Stuart  was  aware  of  all  this, 
why  did  he  labor  to  make  the  contrary  impression? 

Does  any  one  now  inquire  whether,  or  to  what  extent,  the 
Congregationalists  of  the  North  and  of  New  England  were 
responsible  for  these  opinions  of  Prof.  Stuart?  We  will 
answer  by  propounding  another  inquiry. 

Suppose  Prof.  Stuart,  instead  of  writing  what  we  have  here 
quoted  concerning  slavery,  had  written  a biblical  defence  of 
Universalism,  or  of  some  other  doctrine  that  orthodox  Con-  , 
gregationalists  had  considered  “heresy.”  Then  suppose  the 
intercourse,  the  bearing,  and  the  relations  of  the  Congrega- 
tional sect  towards  Prof.  Stuart  had  continued  to  be  what 
every  one  knows  they  were,  at  the  time  of  his  writing  on 
slavery,  and  for  fifteen  years  afterwards — we  ask,  whether 
orthodox  Congregationalists  in  England,  and  whether  public 
sentiment,  the  world  over,  would  not  inevitably  have  held 
New  England  Congregationalists,  as  a body,  responsible  for  his 
doctrines  ? 

When  Dr.  Graham,  in  the  Presbyterian  Church,  wrote  a 
biblical  defence  of  slaveholding,  his  Synod  suspended  him 
from  the  ministry.  Why  ? Because  they  knew  that  they 
should  otherwise  be  held  responsible  for  his  heresy ; which 
was  substantially  the  same  with  that  of  Prof.  Stuart,*  who, 
had  he  been  a member  of  the  Synod  of  Cincinnati,  would 
probably  have  been  suspended,  likewise. 

It  may  be  said  that  Congregationalists  hold  no  such  eccle- 
siastical powers.  But  they  hold  and  freely  exercise  (no 

* It  may  be  said  that  Prof.  Stuart’s  defence  of  slavery  was  less  self-consistent  than 
Dr.  Graham’s,  containing  concessions  that  overturned  his  whole  argument.  This 
only  shows  that  he  was  not  unaware  that  the  principles  of  Christianity  were  hostile 
to  slavery,  while  he  was  laboring  to  construe  particular  texts  in  its  favor. 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


171 


“ General  Assembly  ” forbidding  them)  the  power  of  with- 
drawing religious  co-operation  and  communion.  Had  Prof. 
Stuart  avowed  himself  a Universal ist,  it  would  have  been 
promptly  done.  And  the  same  result  would  have  been  wit- 
nessed had  a defence  of  slavery  been  thought  as  heretical  as 
Universalism. 

Suppose,  again,  that  Prof.  Stuart  had  written  concerning 
adultery,  or  concubinage  (one  feature  of  slavery),  or  concern- 
ing robbery,  or  horse-stealing,  or  any  other  known  and  pro- 
scribed crime,  as  he  wrote  concerning  slaveholding.  Would 
or  would  not  an  impartial  public  sentiment  abroad,  or  in  com- 
ing ages,  hold  the  sect  responsible  that  continued  to  hold  fra- 
ternity with  him,  to  confide  in  him  as  a religious  teacher,  an 
accomplished  educator  of  religious  teachers  ? 

Ho  personal  dislike  of  Prof.  Stuart  has  occasioned  these 
remarks.  He  had  his  attractive  traits  of  character.  He  was 
the  admired  representative  of  a class — a very  large  class — of 
Congregational  ministers,  his  associates  and  pupils.  His 
memory  is  still  venerated;  he  is  proudly  pointed  to,  by  his 
sect,  as  “ the  father  of  the  science  of  biblical  criticism  in 
America and  the  clergy  of  other  sects  recognize  the  validity 
of  the  claim.  All  this  tends  directly  and  almost  irresistibly 
to  confirm,  in  the  community,  the  belief  that  slaveholding  is 
not  inconsistent  with  the  Bible.  If  “ the  father  of  biblical 
criticism”  says  so,  who  shall  contradict  it  ? One  in  ten  of 
those  who  receive  his  testimony,  may  infer  the  innocency  of 
slaveholding  ; while  nine  in  ten  will  infer  the  moral  deficiency 
of  the  Bible,  and  this  will  swell  the  tide  of  horror  and  amaze- 
ment at  “ infidel  abolitionism.”  Impartial  history,  if  it 
attempts  to  look  below  the  surface  of  things,  and  trace  effects 
to  their  causes,  must  give  marked  prominence  to  influences 
like  these.  The  real  position  of  the  sects  could  not  other- 
wise be  understood. 

It  is  not  known  that  the  Trustees,  Faculty,  and  friends  of 
the  Theological  Seminary  at  Andover,  were  ever  distressed 
with  the  apprehension  that  Prof.  Stuart’s  heresy  on  the  slave 
question  would  diminish  the  patronage,  or  injure  the  reputa- 


172 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


tion  of  their  institution,  in  which  he  held  so  conspicuous  a 
post.  But  no  one  will  doubt  that  those  fears  would  have 
risen  to  a high  pitch,  had  he  dissented  from  the  policy  of  the 
Colonization  Society,  or  avowed  himself  an  advocate  of  imme- 
diate and  unconditional  emancipation.  The  views  of  Prof. 
Stuart  were  extensively  circulated  among  the  Congregational 
churches  and  ministry  of  New  England.  Had  there  been  any 
general  or  earnest  dissent  from  them,  or  if  his  intimate  asso- 
ciates had  been  grieved  at  his  course,  the  religious  journals 
of  the  denomination  would  have  contained  evidence  of.  the 
fact.  Slight  shades  of  difference  in  metaphysical  speculation, 
among  professors  of  theology,  have  given  rise  to -rival  claims 
among  the  Theological  Seminaries  of  New  England,  but  the 
position  of  the  learned  Professor  at  Andover  concerning 
slavery  has  occasioned  no  manifestations  of  that  character. 
Dissent  was  indeed  strongly  expressed ; but  it  was  the  dissent 
of  an  inconsiderable  though  increasing  minority,  not  of  the 
main  body. 

It  may  be  in  place  to  add  here,  that  soon  after  the  passage, 
by  Congress,  of  the  Fugitive  Slave  Bill,  in  1850,  Prof.  Stuart 
(who  had  previously  resigned  his  Professorship  at  Andover), 
appeared  as  the  public  defender  and  eulogist  of  Hon.  Daniel 
Webster,  for  the  part  he  took  in  procuring  and  vindicating 
that  iniquitous  measure.  In  company  with  Dr.  Leonard 
Woods,  late  Professor  at  Andover,  Prof.  Ralph  Emerson,  of 
the  same  institution,  and  other  Congregational  ministers,"  he 
gave  his  signature  to  a paper  drawn  up  for  the  purpose.  And 
afterwards  he  vindicated  his  position  in  a pamphlet,  at  some 
length. 

This  new  demonstration  in  favor  of  slavery,  we  are  happy 
to  add,  appears  to  have  been  less  favorably  received  among 
Congregationalists,  than  the  former  one.  It  is  understood 
that  most  of  the  Professors  at  Andover  declined  signing  the 
paper  above-mentioned  (though  they  entered  no  public  protest 

* Among  the  names  appended  to  this  paper  were  those  of  Dr.  Dana  of  Newbury- 
port,  Rev.  W.  W.  Rogers  of  Boston,  Pres.  Sparks  of  Harvard  College  (Unitarian), 
&c.,  <fec. 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


173 


or  disclaimer  against  it),  and  the  pamphlet  has  probably 
exerted  an  influence  in  the  direction  opposite  to  its  design.* 

GENERAL  ASSOCIATION  OF  CONNECTICUT. 

The  General  Association  of  Congregational  Ministers  in 
Connecticut  have  repeatedly  defined  their  position  in  -respect 
to  slavery.  The  resolutions  adopted  at  different  times  are  as 
follows : 

At  Vernon,  in  1834.  Resolved,  That  to  buy  and  sell  human  beings,  or 
to  hold  and  treat  them  as  merchandise,  or  to  treat  servants,  free  or  bond,  in 
any  manner  inconsistent  with  the  fact  that  they  are  intelligent,  and  voluntary 
beings,  made  in  the  image  of  God,  is  a violation  of  the  principles  of  the 
word  of  God,  and  should  be  treated  by  all  the  churches  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ  as  an  immorality,  inconsistent  with  a profession  of  the  Christian 
religion. 

Resolved,  that  this  Association  regards  the  laws  and  usages  in  respect 
to  slavery,  which  exist  in  many  of  the  States  of  this  Union,  as  inconsistent 
with  the  character  and  responsibilities  of  a free  and  Christian  people,  and 
holds  it  to  be  the  duty  of  every  Christian,,  and  especially  of  every  Minister 
of  the  Gospel,  to  use  all  prudent  and  lawful  efforts  for  the  peaceful  abolition 
of  slavery. 

“At  Norfolk,  in  1836.  Resolved,  that  in  the  judgment  of  this  Associa- 
tion, the  buying  and  selling  of  human  beings,  and  the  holding  them  for  selfish 
ends,  by  the  ministers  and  members  of  our  Qjiurches  removing  to  the  South, 
is  a great  sin,  and  utterly  inconsistent  with  their  Christian  profession. 

At  New  Haven,  in  1840.  Resolved,  that  American  slavery,  is,  in  the 
opinion  of  this  body,  inconsistent  with  the  principles  of  the  Gospel,  and  its 
immediate  abolition  by  those  who  have  the  legal  power,  is  a duty  in  the 
discharge  of  which  the  blessing  of  heaven  may  be  expected. 

Resolved,  that  we  recommend  to  the  churches  under  our  care,  a prayer- 
ful consideration  of  this  important  subject,  and  the  exertion  of  their  appro- 
priate influence  for  the  emancipation  of  all  the  enslaved  throughout  this  land 
and  throughout  the  world. 


* And  yet  it  remains  true  that  the  F ugitive  Slave  Bill-  of  1850  has  its  earnest  advo- 
cates among  Congregationalists,  as  it  certainly  has  among  the  leading  ministers  and 
editors  of  the  Presbyterian  and  other  denominations,  by  whom  a strenuous  effort 
has  been  made  to  cast  odium  and  reproach  upon  those  who  maintain,  in  reference 
to  this  enactment,  that  the  laws  of  God  are  paramount  to  the  unrighteous  edicts  of 
man,  and  annul  them.  Under  such  circumstances,  it  would  seem  the  duty  of  all  who 
fear  God,  to  bear  solemn  testimony  against  such  impiety. 


174 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


In  1845.  Resolved,  that  we  again  adopt  these  resolutions,  as  the 
expression  of  our  present  views,  and  direct  our  scribe  to  transmit  a copy  of 
them  to  the  stated  clerks  of  each  of  the  bodies,  styled  “ The  General 
Assembly.” 

To  tlie  reader  uninitiated  in  the  nice  distinctions  elaborated 
by  tbe  New  England  Congregational  Clergy,  in  their  discus- 
sions on  tbis  subject,  these  Resolutions?  standing  by  themselves, 
would  appear  to  be  tolerably  distinct  testimonies  against  the 
practice  of  slaveholding.  To  understand  them  correctly,  they 
must  be  construed  in  the  light  of  what  the  same  bodies 
refused  to  say,  on  the  same  subject,  and  also  in  the  light  of  the 
discussions  had,  at  the  time  of  adopting  them. 

We  will,  therefore,  put  them  by  the  side  of  the  resolutions 
“offered  by  Rev.  Mr.  Perkins  of  Meriden,  in  1845,”  but  not 
adopted : 

“ Whereas,  this  Association  has  frequently  delivered  its  opinions  in  rela- 
tion to  slaveholding — and  whereas,  recent  events,  such  as  the  imprisonment 
of  Christian  men,  on  the  charge  of  aiding  slaves  to  escape,  and  the  late 
action  of  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  seems  to 
require  the  reiteration  of  our  views,  therefore  resolved  : 

“ 1st.  That  we  consider  slaveholding  as  an  outrage  on  human  rights,  and 
at  variance  with  the  spirit  of  Christianity. 

“2d.  That  no  man  is  bound  in  conscience  to  obey  slave  law. 

“3d.  That  while  it  may  be«matter  of  judgment  and  expediency  what 
measures  should  be  taken,  and  what  risksincurred  in  aiding  the  colored  man  to 
escape  from  bondage,  as  once  the  like  considerations  should  have  been  weighed 
in  deciding  how  far  we  should  have  gone  in  aiding  a white  slave  to  escape 
from  Algiers ; yet  the  right  to  give  such  aid,  we  hold  to  be  undeniable. 

“ 4th.  That  we  recommend,  to  our  churches,  to  give  a place  to  the  slave 
in  their  prayers  and  benevolent  efforts,  together  with  the  usual  religious 
objects  of  the  day. 

“ 5th.  That  our  delegate  to  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church,  carry  from  us  to  that  body,  a letter  on  its  connection  with  slavery.” 

After  a long  debate,  these  Resolutions  were  set  aside,  and 
the  action  taken  which  has  already  been  recorded.  On  a 
comparison  it  will  be  seen  that  the  Association  declined  saying 
that  “no  man  is  bound  in  conscience  to  obey  slave  law” — 
declined  expressing  sympathy  for  “ Christian  men,”  imprison- 
ed on  charge  of  aiding  fugitive  slaves — declined  affirming  the 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


175 


right  of  assisting  such,  fugitives — declined  recommending  to 
the  Churches  to  place  anti-slavery  efforts  with  other  benevolent 
and  religious  objects — declined  addressing  to  the  General 
Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  a letter  on  its  connection 
with  slavery. 

On  a further  examination  of  the  Resolutions  at  different 
times  adopted  by  the  General  Association,  and  re-affirmed  in 
1845,  some  further  differences  between  the  sentiments  express- 
ed, and  the  rejected  resolutions  of  Mr.  Perkins,  will  be 
manifest. 

The  General  Association,  even  in  1834,  had  learned,  it 
seems,  to  condemn  “slavery”  rather  than  “ slaveholding .”  The 
distinction  was  not  then  understood  by  the  public  as  it  has 
since  been  insisted  on,  and  the  preamble  of  Mr.  Perkins,  stat- 
ing that  the  General  Association  had  “frequently  delivered 
its  opinions  in  relation  to  slaveholding ,”  seems  to  have  been 
considered  too  inaccurate  a statement  (as  doubtless  it  was)  to 
be  endorsed.  The  Association  had  not  condemned  the  act , 
but  only  the  abstraction. 

The  resolutions  of  1834  expended  their  strength  upon  “ laws 
and  usages,”  rather  than  upon  persons  doing  a wrong  act  un- 
der shelter  of  them.  They  would  be  understood  at  the  South 
as  bearing  against  the  slave  trade,  rather  than  against  slave 
holding.  They  suggested,  likewise  the  implication  of  a senti- 
ment since  insisted  on,  that  slaves  may  be  held  without  being 
“ treated  as  merchandise,  ” and  that  the  distinction  between 
“bond  and  free  ” is,  by  no  means,  the  significant  point  in  that 
matter. 

The  resolution  of  1836,  plainly  condemns  buying,  selling, 
and  holding  human  beings  as  slaves,  only  when  it  is  done  for 
selfish  ends ; thus  teaching,  by  implication,  the  doctrine  now 
openly  insisted  on,  that  all  this  may  be  innocently  and  even 
laudably  done,  for  benevolent  ends — which  is  all  the  license  the 
slaveholder  asks.  He  thinks  he  only  holds  slaves  for  their 
own  good. 

The  resolution  of  1840  retains  the  same  distinction  between 
slavery  and  sla ve-holdmg  ; that  is,  slavery  in  the  abstract , and 


176 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


slavery  in  practice ; the  former  being  almost  universally  con- 
demned : the  latter,  very  extensively  defended  or  palliated. 

The  debates  on  the  proposed  Resolutions  of  Mr.  Perkins 
illustrate  the  meaning  of  the  Resolutions  adopted. 

Rev.  Mr.  Andrews  vindicated  the  course  of  the  General  Assembly. 
Slavery  (he  said)  existed  in  the  time  of  Christ  and  his  apostles.  They 
did  not  condemn  it.  He  would  vote  for  no  resolution  that  did  not  distinctly 
avow  that  slaveholding  was  not  sin. 

Rev.  E.  Hall,  of  Norwalk,  said  that  if  he  supposed  there  was  the  least 
danger  that  these  resolutions  would  pass,  he  would  make  a strenuous  speech. 
He  abhorred  slavery  totally,  and  from  the  bottom  of  his  heart,  but  these 
resolutions  were  rank  Garrisonism  and  Dorrism.  He  could  not  think  more 
than  one  or  two  persons  would  vote  for  them. 

Dr.  Bennett  Tyler  (of  the  Theological  Seminary  at  East  Windsor)  said 
that  “ Christ  and  his  apostles  did  not  condemn  slaveholders,  nor  command 
them  to  emancipate  their  slaves.” 

“ Rev.  Mr.  Ely”  repeated  the  old  story  of  Paul’s  returning  a fugitive 
slave  to  his  master.  He  would  seek  the  conversion  of  the  slaves  first,  and 
then  seek  their  liberty  in  the  Lord’s  way  and  in  the  Lord’s  time. 

The  New  York  Observer,  in  its  account  of  this  matter,  declares  that  the 
resolutions  introduced  by  Mr.  Perkins  were  the  most  ultra  and  untenable 
ever  heard  of  in  any  ecclesiastical  body. 

A severer  satire  upon  “ecclesiastical  bodies”  it  would  be 
difficult  to  indite.  If  the  Resolutions  of  Mr.  Perkins  were  too 
ultra,  there  was  an  opportunity  presented  to  the  General  As- 
sociation, had  they  been  disposed,  to  have  adopted  others  of  a 
sufficiently  accommodating  character. 

Rev.  S.  W.  S.  Dutton  was  convinced  that  the  resolutions  of  Mr.  Perkins 
would  not  pass.  If  they  were  disposed  of,  he  would  offer  the  following  : 

“I.  Resolved,  That  the  buying  and  selling  of  human  beings  for  gain; 
the  forced  separation  of  husbands  and  wives,  parents  and  children  ; the  per- 
mission, by  masters,  to  servants  under  their  control,  to  live  in  a temporary 
concubinage,  liable  to  be  ended  at  any  time  by  the  caprice  of  either  party, 
or  by  the  caprice  of  others  ; the  withholding  the  Bible  and  the  ability  to 
read  the  Bible,  by  masters,  from  servants  under  their  control  and  care  ; and 
in  general,  the  treatment  of  servants  by  masters  in  any  manner  inconsis- 
tent with  their  nature  as  immortal  beings,  for  whom  Christ  gave  himself 
to  die,  are  crimes  utterly  inconsistent  with  a standing  and  a name  in  the 
Church  of  Christ. 

“ 2.  Resolved,  That  all  those  laws,  whether  of  individual  States  or  of 
the  United  States,  which,  instead  of  prohibiting  and  punishing  these  crimes, 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


177 


require,  or  encourage,  or  allow  them,  are  a foul  disgrace  to  a people  who 
glory  in  the  possession  of  freedom  as  God’s  inalienable  gift  to  man,  and  are 
deeply  to  be  deplored  by  all  friends  of  their  country,  as  fitted  to  call  down 
upon  it  the  direst  judgments  of  heaven. 

“3.  Whereas , There  is  a common  fame,  the  cry  of  which  has  gone 
abroad  to  the  ends  of  the  earth,  that  these  crimes  are  perpetrated  by  minis- 
ters and  members  in  both  branches  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  this 
country  ; therefore, 

“ Resolved,  That  our  delegates  be  directed  to  present  a copy  of  these 
resolutions  to  each  branch  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  with  our  fraternal 
request,  that  the  truth  of  this  common  fame  be  publicly  denied,  or,  if  that 
be  inconsistent  with  facts,  that  proper  and  effectual  measures  be  taken  to 
bring  the  offenders  to  repentance.” 

These  Resolutions  are  similar  in  spirit  to  those  presented  to 
the  American  Board  at  Brooklyn,  the  same  year,  by  Dr. 
Leonard  Bacon  of  New  Haven,  and  unsuccessfully  advocated 
by  him,  on  that  occasion.  He  also  advocated  the  above  reso- 
lutions of  Mr.  Dutton,  before  the  General  Association  of  Con- 
necticut. 

What  objection  could  there  have  been  against  them  ? They 
were  specially  designed  to  waive  the  mooted  questions  of  the 
sinfulness  both  of  slavery  and  slaveholding,  and  fix  upon  what 
are  claimed  to  be  the  abuses  of  the  system.  He  urged  upon 
the  Board,  and  upon  the  General  Assembly,  the  importance 
of  condemning,  distinctly,  these  practices. 

Why  could  it  not  be  done  ? Why,  but  because,  instead  of 
an  indefinite  and  vague  abstraction  there  was  an  inconvenient 
and  well  understood  specification  of  prevalent  practices ; of 
practices  which  would  criminate  the  great  body  of  religious 
slaveholders  at  the  South?  Because,  moreover,  the  third 
Resolution  would  be  understood  at  the  South  as  evidence  that 
the  General  Association  of- Connecticut  were  in  earnest  for  the 
removal  of  these  practices. 

It  will  be  seen,  on  inspection,  that  the  action  of  the  General 
Association  of  Connecticut  does  not  conflict  with  the  positions 
Df  Professor  Stuart,  or,  at  least,  only  as  Professor  Stuart’s 
positions  conflict  with  each  other.  Self-consistency  is  not  to 
:>e  expected,  where  the  effort  is  to  avoid  the  condemnation  of 

12 


178 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


that  which  common  sense  and  common  decency  will  not  con- 
sent to  defend. 

GENERAL  ASSOCIATION  OF  MASSACHUSETTS. 

This  body  of  Congregational  Ministers  have  been  led  to  re- 
cord a somewhat  different  testimony,  and  one  which  it  might 
be  difficult  to  reconcile  with  their  patronage  of  Professor  Stu- 
art, and  of  the  American  Board. 

In  1834  the  General  Association  adopted  the  following 
Eesolutions : 

“ 1.  Resolved , That  the  slavery  existing  in  this  country,  by  which  more 
than  two  millions  of  our  countrymen  are  deprived  of  their  inalienable  rights, 
and  held  and  treated  as  mere  merchandise,  is  a violation  of  the  law  of  God 
and  the  fundamental  principles  of  our  national  government.  . 

“ 2.  That  this  Association  regards  those  usages  and  laws  in  the  slave- 
holding States  which  withhold  the  Bible  as  a book  to  be  read  from  the 
slave  population,  as  inconsistent  with  the  spirit  of  Christianity. 

“ 3.  That  we  deeply  sympathize  with  our  enslaved  brethren,  and  com- 
mend their  cause  to  the  prayers  of  the  Christian  Church. 

“ 4,  That  the  efforts  recently  made  in  some  of  the  slaveholding  States 
for  imparting  religious  instructions  to  the  slaves,  are  regarded  by  us  with 
lively  hope  and  earnest  prayers  for  their  universal  extension. 

“ 5.  That  the  principles  and  objects  of  the  American  Anti-Slavery  So- 
ciety, so  far  as  they  do  not  come  in  collision  with  the  American  Coloniza- 
tion Society,  meet  with  our  approbation.” 

A sixth  resolution  recommended  the  Colonization  Society  to 
the  continued  support  of  the  churches,  by  collections  on  the 
Fourth  of  July,  &c.  How  far  the  first  three  resolutions  were 
congruous  with  the  remaining  ones,  and  how  well  they  com- 
ported with  the  subsequent  activities  of  those  who  voted  for 
them,  we  do  not  now  stop  to  inquire.  But  it  is  proper  to  re- 
mark that  these  resolutions  were  adopted  in  the  presence  of 
the  agents  of  the  two  societies,  (the  Anti-slavery  and  the  Col- 
onization,) who  were  pressing  their  rival  claims,  and  at  a time 
when  the  opposition  of  leading  Colonizationists  to  the  Anti- 
slavery movement  had  diminished  the  receipts  of  the  Coloni- 
zation Society. 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


179 


In  1837,  the  General  Association  adopted  the  following  : 

“ Whereas,  Slavery,  as  it  exists  in  our  country,  is  a great  moral  and 
social  evil ; and  whereas,  no  man  should  feel  indifferent  respecting  that 
which  the  God  of  heaven  disapproves,  therefore, 

“ 1.  Resolved , That  the  assumed  right  of  holding  our  fellow-men  in  bond- 
age, working  them  without  wages,  and  buying  and  selling  them  as  property, 
is  obviously  contrary  to  the  principles  of  natural  justice  and  the  spirit  of 
the  gospel,  offensive  to  God,  and  ought  to  cease  with  the  least  possible 
delay. 

“ 2.  Resolved,  That  we  approve  of  free  and  candid  discussion  on  the  sub- 
ject of  slavery,  and  also  of  all  other  proper  methods  of  diffusing  light  and 
promoting  correct  moral  sentiment,  which  may  have  an  influence  to  do  away 
the  evil.” — Eman.,  Aug.  10,  1837. 

How  well  these  resolutions,  especially  the  second,  corres- 
pond with  the  action  of  the  General  Association  at  the  same 
session,  and  the  year  previous,  in  respect  to  the  labors  of  anti- 
slavery lecturers  among  their  churches,  the  reader  will  judge 
when  he  shall  have  seen  the  record,  in  another  chapter,  of  the 
opposition  raised  against  abolitionists.  For  the  present,  we 
let  it  stand  disconnected  with  those  matters,  and  by  the  side 
of  other  Congregational  testimonies  concerning  slavery. 

In  1849,  the  General  Association  adopted  the  following: 

“ Resolved,  That,  in  maintaining  correspondence  and  connection  with 
the  two  General  Assemblies  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  we  look  with  deep 
solicitude  upon  the  position  of  those  bodies  with  respect  to  the  sin  of 
slavery ; that  our  own  strong  sympathies  are  with  those  brethren  in  these 
Assemblies  who  are  laboring  in  an  earnest  and  Christian  spirit  to  put  an  end 
to  this  evil ; and  that  we  desire  our  delegates  to  those  Assemblies,  in  a 
decided  but  courteous  manner,  to  express  our  deep  conviction,  that  the  right 
of  the  enslaved,  the  cause  of  true  religion,  and  the  honor  of  the  Great  Head 
of  the  Church,  require  those  ecclesiastical  bodies  to  use  all  their  legitimate 
power  and  influence  for  the  speedy  removal  of  slavery  from  the  churches 
under  their  supervision.” 

The  fact  of  a religious  connection  and  fraternal  intercourse 
between  the  Congregationalists  of  Massachusetts  and  the  slave- 
holding Presbyterians  of  the  South,  is  here  distinctly  recog- 
nized, an  item  of  some  importance,  as  we  sometimes  hear  it 
confidently  denied.  The  manner  in  which  the  Old  School 
General  Assembly,  as  already  mentioned,  repulsed  this  remon- 


180 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


strance,  affords  some  evidence  that  they  regarded  it  as  having  . 
been  uttered  in  earnest.  It  affords,  at  the  same  time,  an  occa- 
sion and  an  opportunity  for  the  General  Association  of  Massa- 
chusetts to  show,  by  their  future  course  and  position,  whether 
they  are  prepared  to  carry  out  the  principles  involved  in  this 
testimony.  The  alternative  is  now  fairly  presented  to  them, 
of  forbearing  a repetition  of  that  testimony,  or  of  ceasing 
to  “ maintain  correspondence  and  connection  ” with  the  Old 
School  Presbyterian  Church. 

The  Convention  of  Congregational  Ministers  of 
Massachusetts,  in  1848,  appointed  a committee  to  prepare  a 
report  on  slavery.  The  committee  made  an  elaborate  report 
in  1849.  The  Convention  approving  of  “ the  general  prin- 
ciples and  results  of  the  same,”  authorized  its  publication.* 
The  annual  report  of  the  Am.  & For.  A.  S.  Society  says,  that 
it  contains  some  things  which  they  (the  anti-slavery  commit- 
tee) cannot  approve,  but  that,  on  the  whole,  it  bears  “ a faithful 
testimony  against  the  wrongfulness  of  slavery.”  From  some 
extracts  it  appears  that  this  document  denies  that  “ slavery, 
as  it  exists  in  the  United  States,  and  as  it  has  been  legalized,” 
is  sanctioned  by  the  Bible.  It  affirms  that  the  Mosaic  institu- 
tions are  “ utterly  repugnant,  and  destructive  to,  all  slavehold- 
ing anc(  slavery;”  and  finally,  that  “it  well  becomes  the  Con- 
vention of  Congregational  Ministers  of  this  ancient  Common- 
wealth solemnly  to  declare  to  the  world  their  deep  conviction 
of  the  injustice  and  inhumanity  of  the  system  of  slavery,  and 
of  its  absolute  repugnance  to  all  the  principles  of  the  word 
of  God.” 

GENERAL  CONFERENCE  OF  MAINE. 

This  body  is  composed  of  Congregational  ministers  and  lay 
delegates.  In  1886,  the  Conference 

“ Resolved,  That  slaveholding;,  as  it  exists  in  a portion  of  these  United 
States,  is  a great  sin  against  God  and  man,  for  which  the  nation  ought  to 


* Published  by  T.  R.  Marvin,  Boston : 92  pages.  This  Convention  consists  of 
both  “Orthodox”  and  Unitarian  Congregational  ministers,  associated  for  some 
special  objects. 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


181 


humble  itself,  and  for  the  speedy  and  entire  removal  of  which,  every  Chris- 
tian ought  to  pray,  and  use  all  suitable  means  within  his  reach.” — Eman. 

The  Congregational  ministers  and  churches  of  Maine,  as  a 
body,  have  appeared  to  be  more  earnest  in  their  condemna- 
tion of  slavery,  than  those  of  Massachusetts  and  Connecticut. 

In  1846,  the  General  Conference  adopted  a paper  expressing  their  “ sur- 
prise and  grief”  at  the  then  recent  action  of  the  General  Assembly  of  the 
Presbyterian  Church,  which,  say  they,  “ appears  to  be  directly  at  vari- 
ance with  the  former  report  made  by  the  General  Assembly  in  1818,  and  to 
be  intended  as  a justification  of  the  system  of  slavery  now  existing  in  the 
Southern  States.” — Chr.  Inv.,  Feb.  1846. 

CONGREGATIONAL  PUBLICATIONS. 

Ihe  Christian  Spectator , the  organ  of  the  New  Haven  or  New 
School  Theology  of  New  England,  was  earlier  in  its  defence 
of  slavery  than  the  Old  School  Doctors  at  Princeton,  or  the 
Professor  at  Andover. 

“ The  Bible  contains  no  explicit  prohibition  of  slavery.  It  recognizes, 
both  in  the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  such  a constitution  of  society,  and  it 
lends  its  authority  to  enforce  the  mutual  obligations  resulting  from  that  con- 
stitution. Its  language  is,  1 Slaves,  obey  your  masters,  and,  masters,  give 
unto  your  slaves  that  which  is  just  and  equal,  knowing  that  ye  also  have  a 
master  in  heaven.’  There  is  neither  chapter  nor  verse  of  holy  writ  which 
lends  any  countenance  to  the  fulminating  spirit  of  universal  emancipation, 
of  which  some  specimens  may  be  seen  in  some  of  the  newspapers.” — New 
Haven  Chr.  Spectator,  Sept.,  1833,  Vol.  II.,  No.  5,  p.  473  ; Gen.  Temp., 
April  17,  1833. 

“Domestic  slavery,  in  the  light  of  the  Scriptures,  and  in  the  light  of 
common  sense,  is  justifiable  to  the  same  extent,  and  on  exactly  the  same 
principles  with  despotism  on  a larger  scale.  The  right  and  the  wrong  of 
both  is,  materially,  perhaps  we  should  say  precisely,  the  same.”  - * * * 

“ What  is  the  duty  of  the  Emperor  of  Russia  towards  his  fifty  millions  of® 
slaves  ? Is  it  his  crime  that  they  are  his  slaves  1”  &c.,  &c. — lb. 

The  innocency  of  “despotism”  iu  general  is  strange  doc- 
trine in  America,  and  among  the  sons  of  the  Puritans,  admit- 
ting, for  the  sake  of  the  argument,  that  chattel  slavery  is  no 
worse — which  is  not  true. 

On  the  vitally  important  subject  of  oral  instruction  for  slaves, 
as  a substitute  for  the  reading  of  the  scriptures,  -the  Congre- 


182 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


gational  press,  in  New  England,  to  some  extent,  took 
substantially,  the  ground  of  the  following  extracts.  The 
Portland  Christian  Mirror,  if  we  mistake  not,  contained  some 
suggestions  in  that  direction. 

The  Editor  of  the  Vermont  Chronicle,  (Rev.  Joseph  Tracy,) 
afterwards  Editor  of  the  Boston  Recorder,  and  more  recently 
assistant  Editor  of  the  N.  Y.  Observer,  wrote  of  the  slaves  as 
follows : 

“ They  have  a right  to  such  religious  and  other  instruction  as  they  are 
capable  of  receiving.  When  they  have  profited  by  that,  they  will  be  capable 
of  receiving  more,  and  so  on,  till  they  become  capable  of  performing  the 
duties  of  freemen  and  then  they  will  have  a right  to  be  free.  That  they 
have  a right  to  be  taught  to  read,  immediately,  we  do  not  say,  but  their  right 
to  be  taught  that  which  it  will  be  immensely  difficult,  all  but  impossible,  to 
teach  them  without  reading,  is  as  evident  as  the  sun  at  noon-day.” — Vermont 
Chronicle,  vide  Emancipator , March  11,  1834. 

“ The  art  of  reading,  we  know,  wonderfully  increases  the  facility  with 
which  we  may  fit  ourselves  for  the  performance  of  duty,  but  it  is  possible  to 
become  safe  citizens  without  it.  We,  therefore,  pass  no  sentence,  either 

OF  CONDEMNATION"  OR  APPROVAL,  ON  THOSE  WHO  WITHHOLD  THIS  ART  FROM 

their  slaves.  We  only  say  they  must  be  educated.  You  must  educate 
them.  Take  your  own  way  to  do  it.  If  you  find  it  safe  to  put  books  into 
their  hands,  it  will  diminish  your  labor  immensely.  If  not,  you  must  do  it, 
nevertheless.  The  labor  of  educating  them  without  books  will  be  immense, 
but,  books  or  no  books,  it  must  be  done,  and  if  books  are  unsafe  instruments, 
you  must  work  the  harder.” — Sermon  of  Rev.  Joseph  Tracy , before  the 
Vermont  Col.  Soc. 

“ Capable  of  receiving!”  How  long  before  they  will  be 
11  capable''  of  learning  to  read  ? What  right  have  one  class  of 
men  to  sit  in  judgment,  and  decide  upon  the  captabilitks  of 
another  class  to  receive  and  study  the  scriptures  ? If  we  may 
“ pass  no  sentence  of  condemnation”  on  this  assumption  in 
America,  then  we  must  cease  our  condemnation  of  it  in  Spain 
and  Italy. 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


183 


CHAPTER  XY. 

POSITION  OF  THE  AMERICAN  CHURCHES,  ETC.  CONTINUED. 

IV. — BAPTISTS. 

Charleston  (S.  C.)  Association — Savannah  River  (Geo.)  ditto — Goslein  (Va.)  ditto— 
Rev.  Dr.  Furman — Sale  of  his  negroes — Dr.  Bolles — “Pleasing  union”  among 
Am.  Baptists — “ Southern  brethren,  generally  Slaveholders” — North  Carolina 
Association — Baptist  Triennial  Convention— Board  of  Foreign  Missions — -Acting 
Board  at  Boston — Baptist  Home  Mission  Society — Am.  and  For.  Bible  Society— 
Am.  Bap.  Publication  Society. 

Unlike  Presbyterians  and  Methodists,  the  Baptists  are 
subject  to  no  great  ecclesiastical  body,  holding  supervision 
over  all  the  Churches  and  members  of  the  denomination, 
Northern  and  Southern.  The  non-slaveholding  portion,  there- 
fore, of  the  Baptist  sect,  at  the  North,  can  plead  no  organic 
difficulties,  of  an  ecclesiastical  character,  in  the  way  of  their 
entire  separation  from  the  sin  of  slaveholding,  and  their 
untrammeled  religious  testimony  against  it.  If  they  receive 
the  sin  into  their  pulpits,  and  seat  it  at  their  communion 
tables,  it  is  not  because  the  canons  of  their  church  require 
them  to  submit  to  such  arrangements,  nor  because  any  Bishops, 
Conferences,  or  General  Assemblies,  have  imposed  the  burthen 
upon  them.  The  bond  of  affinity  and  sympathy  between 
Baptist  slaveholders  and  Baptist  Anti-Slavery  men,  if  it  exists 
at  all,  exists  voluntarily,  and  not  by  compulsion — exists  as  a 
veritable  reality  and  not  as  a mere  matter  of  appearance  and 
form. 

That  Southern  Baptists,  like  Southern  Methodists,  Presby- 
terians, and  Episcopalians,  are  commonly  slaveholders  (except 
those  of  them  who  are  slaves,)  we  need  not  spend  time  to 


184 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


prove,  as  it  will  not  be  denied.  A few  facts  will  show  the 
general  position  of  Southern  Baptists,  on  the  subject. 

In  1835,  the  Charleston  Baptist  Association  addressed  a 
memorial  to  the  Legislature  of  South  Carolina,  in  defence  of 
slavery.  They  say : 

“ The  said  Association  does  not  consider  that  the  holy  scriptures  have 
made  the  fact  of  slavery  a question  of  morals  at  all.  The  Divine  Author  of 
our  holy  religion,  in  particular,  found  slavery  a part  of  the  existing 
institutions  of  society,  with  which,  if  not  sinful,  it  was  not  his  design  to 
intermeddle,  but  to  leave  them  entirely  to  the  control  of  men.  Adopting  it, 
therefore,  as  one  of  the  allowed  relations  of  Society,  he  made  it  the  province 
of  his  religion  only  to  prescribe  the  reciprocal  duties  of  the  relation.  The 
question  it  is  believed  is  purely  one  of  political  economy,  &c.” 

As  it  is  here  assumed  that  Christ  and  Christianity  do  not 
“ intermeddle”  with  questions  of  mere  “ political  economy,” 
and  as  slavery  is  affirmed  to  be  purely  such  a question,  and  not 
a question  of  morals,  it  might  be  inquired  why  an  ecclesiastical 
body  should  depart  from  what  it  alleged  to  be  Christ’s  example, 
by  “ intermeddling”  with  this  purely  political  subject?  The 
“ Association”  proceeded  to  affirm  their  right  to  hold  slaves, 
and  to  say : 

“'Neither  society  nor  individuals,  have  any  more  authority  to  demand  a 
relinquishment  without  an  equivalent,  in  the  one  case  than  in  the  other,” 
(that  is,  their  right  to)  “ the  money  and  lands  inherited  from  ancestors  or 
derived  from  industry .” 

The  Association  then  claims  for  the  State  of  S.  Carolina, 
the  exclusive  right  “ to  regulate  the  existence  and  continu- 
ance of  slavery  within  her  territorial  limits,”  and  they 
add  : 

“We  would  resist,  to  the  utmost,  every  invasion  of  THIS  RIGHT, 
come  from  what  quarter  and  under  whatever  pretense  it  may.” 

The  object,  then,  of  this  ecclesiastical  memorial  to  the 
State  Legislature,  was  to  affirm  the  inherent  right  of  slave- 
holding, on  the  same  basis  of  the  rights  of  property  in  “money 
and  lands,”  to  invoke  or  encourage  a continued  legislative 
protection. of  this  supposed  right,  and  to  pledge  The  Charles- 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM.  185 

ton  Baptist  Association , to  the  support  of  this  legislative  action, 
even  to  the  point  of  resistance  to  the  utmost. 

Sad  business  for  the  professed  disciples  of  him  who  came 
to  proclaim  the  jubilee  of  deliverance  to  the  captives  ! 

How  Baptist  slaveholders  understand  the  tenure  of  their 
assumed  rights  of  property  in  man,  and  at  what  expense  they 
expect  those  rights  to  be  maintained  by  their  State  Legislatures, 
may  be  learned  from  the  following  : . 

In  1835  the  following  query , relating  to  slaves,  was  pre- 
sented to  the  Savannah  River  Baptist  Association  of  ministers : 

“ Whether,  in  case  of  involuntary  separation  of  such  a character  as  to 
preclude  all  future  intercourse,  the  parties  may  be  allowed  to  marry  again  V 

ANSWER. 

“ That  such  separation  among  persons  situated  as  our  slaves  are,  is  civilly 
a separation  by  death,  and  they  believe  that,  in  the  sight  of  God,  it  would 
be  so  viewed.  To  forbid  second  marriages  in  such  cases,  would  be  to 
expose  the  parties  not  only  to  greater  hardships  and  stronger  temptations, 
but  to  church  censure  for  acting  in  obedience  to  their  masters,  who  cannot 
be  expected  to  acquiesce  in  a regulation  at  variance  with  justice  to  the 
slaves,  and  to  the  spirit  of  that  command  which  regulates  marriage  between 
Christians.  The  slaves  are  not  free  agents,  and  a dissolution  by  death  is 
not  more  entirely  without  their  cogent  and  beyond  their  control  than  by 
such  separation.” 

Incidentally  here,  the  fact  leaks  out  that  slave  cohabitation 
is  enforced  by  the  authority  of  the  masters,  for  the  increase 
of  their  human  chattels,  and  that  this  is  done  in  utter  con- 
tempt of  the  divine  institution  of  marriage.  And  a body  of 
devout  ecclesiastics  gravely  decide  that  inasmuch  as  this  pro- 
cess, in  connection  with  the  frequent  and  forced  separation 
from  each  other  of  wives  and  husbands  belonging  to  Baptist 
churches,  is  inseparable  from  the  slave  system,  the  divine  in- 
stitution of  marriage,  as  expounded  by  Christ,  must  be  modi- 
fied in  conformity  with  the  slave  code,  in  order  that  those 
whom  God  hath  joined  together,  may,  by  man,  be  put  asun- 
der, so  that  Baptist  wives  may  have  two  husbands  and  Baptist 
husbands  may  have  two  wives,  without  being  subjected  to 
a church  censure.'’ 

The  “censure”  of  such  churches,  verily,  must  be  of  vast 


186 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


benefit  in  rebuking  the  sin  of  adultery ! If  any  testimony 
were  wanted,  to  establish  the  fact  that  slavery  is  incompatible 
with  marriage,  the  Savannah  Eiver  Baptist  Association  have 
furnished  it  to  our  hands. 

In  the  same  year,  1835,  the  ministers  and  messengers  of 
the  Goslein  Baptist  Association,  assembled  at  Free  Union, 
Virginia,  adopted  resolutions,  affirming  their  right  to  slave 
property. 

In  1833,  Rev.  Dr.  Furman  addressed  to  the  Governor 
of  South  Carolina  an  exposition  of  the  views  of  Baptists,  in 
which  he  said : 

“ The  right  of  holding  slaves  is  clearly  established  in  the  Holy  Scrip- 
tures, both  by  precept  and  example.” 

“Dr.  Furman  died  not  long  afterward.  His  legal  representatives  thus 
advertised  his  property  for  sale  : 

“ ‘ NOTICE. 

“ ‘ On  the  first  day  of  February  next  will  be  put  up  at  public  auction, 
before  the  Court-house,  the  following  property,  belonging  to  the  estate  of 
the  late  Rev.  Dr.  Furman,  viz.  : 

“ ‘ A plantation  or  tract  of  land  on  and  in  Wateree  Swamp  ; a tract  of 
the  first  quality  of  fine  land  on  the  waters  of  Black  River  ; a lot  of  land  in 
the  town  of  Camden  ; a library  of  • miscellaneous  character,  chiefly 

THEOLOGICAL  ; 

27  NEGROES, 

some  of  them  very  prime ; two  mules,  one  horse,  and  an  old  wagon.’  ” 

This  is  Baptist  religion  at  the  South.  And  what  is  it  at 
the  North  ? 

“ The  late  Rev.  Lucius  Bolles,  D.D.,  of  Massachusetts,  Cor.  Sec.  Amer. 
Bap.  Board  for  Foreign  Missions,  in  1834,  said  : 

“ ‘ There  is  a pleasing  degree  of  union  among  the  multiplying  thousands 
of  Baptists  throughout  the  land.’  ******  Our  Southern  brethren 
are  generally,  both  ministers  and  people,  slaveholders.’  ” — American 
Churches,  &e. 

The  great  majority  of  northern  Baptists  endorse  this  state- 
ment and  certify  the  essential  identity  of  their  religion  with 
that  of  Southern  Baptists,  by  joining  with  them  in  sending 
their  religion  ...  to  the  heathen. 

The  North  Carolina  Baptist  Convention,  in  1838  or  1839, 


SLAYEEY  AND  FREEDOM. 


187 


adopted  a report  of  a Committee  on  the  religious  instruction 
of  people  of  color.  After  urging,  in  a series  of  Resolutions, 
the  duty  of  instructing  slaves,  they  close  with  the  following: 

“ Resolved,  That  by  religious  instruction  be  understood,  VERBAL  com- 
munications on  religious  subjects.” — Vide  Cincinnati  Cross  and  Baptist 
Journal,  as  quoted  in  A.  S.  Lecturer,  No.  3. 

Thus  careful  were  they  to  be  understood  as  not  intending 
to  recommend  giving  slaves  the  Bible  and  permitting  them  to 
read. 

THE  BAPTIST  TRIENNIAL  CONVENTION. 

This  body  was  organized  in  1814, 

“ Under  its  constitution,  slaveholders  and  non-slaveholders  united  on 
terms  of  social  and  moral  equality.  This  was  its  fatal  error.  It  caused 
the  Convention,  from  its  birth  to  its  dissolution,  to  sanction  as  Christian  a 
slaveholding  religion.”  “The  first  President  was  Richard  Furman,  a 
slaveholder  of  South  Carolina.  He  filled  the  office  till  1820,  when  another 
slaveholder,  Robert  B.  Semple,  of  Virginia,  succeeded  him,  and  was  Pre- 
sident till  1832,  when  Spencer  H.  Cone,*  of  New  York  (City)  was  elected, 
who  held  the  office  till  1841,  when  another  slaveholder,  William  B.  John- 
son, of  South  Carolina,  was  elected,  at  the  close  of  whose  term  of  office, 
1844,  Francis  Wayland  became  President.  Thus,  for  twenty-one  of  the 
thirty  years  of  this  organization,  slaveholders  were  its  Presidents.” — Facts 
for  Bap.  Churches,  pp.  14,  15. 

Connected  with  the  Triennial  Convention  was  a General 
Board  of  Baptist  Foreign  Missions ; and  subordinate  to  this 
was  an  “ Acting  Board,”  located  in  Boston. 

So  late  as  1844,  near  the  time  of  tbe  dissolution  of  that 
body,  it  came  to  light  that  there  was  a slaveholding  mis- 
sionary in  its  employ,  a Mr.  Bushyhead,  who  was  laboring 
among  the  Cherokees.  He  lived  in  a fine  dwelling,  had  a 
plantation,  and  several  slaves. — lb.  p.  102. 

It  also  appeared,  not  long  after,  that  there  were  several 
southern  missionaries  employed  by  the  Board,  and  that,  among 
these,  Mr.  Davenport  and  his  wife,  at  Siam,  were  slaveholders. 


* In  1823  or  1824,  Mr.  Cone  was  pastor  of  a slaveholding  Baptist  Church  in  Alex- 
andria (D.  C.) 


188 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


This  was  stated,  on  authority  of  the  “ Christian  Index,”  (a . 
Southern  Baptist  paper)  by  the  New  York  Baptist  Kegister, 
of  Utica,  N.  Y.,  April  6,  1845.— Ib.  -p.  113-17. 

It  was  also  stated,  on  good  authority,  that  several  others 
among  the  foreign  missionaries  were  slaveholders. — Ib.  p. 
122-3. 

“THE  AMERICAN  BAPTIST  HOME  MISSION  SOCIETY 

was  organized  in  the  City  of  New  York,  April  27,  1832.” 

“ Missionary  Societies ” (northern  and  southern)  “by  paying 
into  its  treasurjr  their  surplus  funds,  become  auxiliary.”  Its 
constitution  makes  no  distinction  between  slaveholders  and 
non-slaveholders.  “ The  Society  has  elected  slaveholding 
officers,  sent  out  slaveholding  missionaries,  and  planted  slave- 
holding churches,  and  all  this  in  perfect  keeping  with  its  Con- 
stitution. Slaveholders  are,  to-day,  (1850)  on  its  list  of  life 
members,  and  its  treasury  is  open  to  the  price  of  men  and 
women  and  little  children.”  “ As  the  Missionary  of  this 
Society,  (Mr.  Try  on,)  entered  Texas,  he  drove  his  slaves  be- 
fore him.” — Ib.  p.  63-65. 

It  was  publicly  stated,  at  a meeting  in  Philadelphia,  by 
Eld.  Duncan  Dunbar,  that  twenty-six  slaveholders  had  been  em- 
ployed by  the  Board. — 1 b.  p.  65. 

The  subject  of  employing  slaveholding  Missionaries  came 
up  for  consideration,  at  its  twelfth  annual  meeting,  at  Phila- 
delphia, in  1844,  but,  after  discussion,  no  action  was  taken 
against  it.  Instead  of  this,  a Resolution  (drawn  up  by  Eld. 
R.  Fuller,  a slaveholder  of  South  Carolina,  and  a Biblical  de- 
fender of  slavery,)  was  adopted,  assuming  neutral  ground, 
and  disclaiming  fellowship,  as  a Society,  either  with  slavery 
or  anti-slavery.  At  this  meeting,  Eld.  B.  M.  Hill,  Corres- 
ponding Secretary  of  the  Society,  stated  that  the  Southern 
States  paid  more  into  the  treasury  than  the  Northern  States, 
and  therefore  more  southern  missionaries  were  appointed  than 
northern  ones. — Ib.  p.  88-90. 

At  the  meeting  of  the  Society  at  Providence,  R.  I.,  April, 
1845,  some  further  discussion  was  had,  and  some  incipient 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


189 


measures  for  a division  between  the  North  and  the  South 
were  considered,  and  a committee  appointed  to  mature  a plan. 
Assurances  were  given  that,  in  the  meantime,  no  more  slave- 
holding missionaries  should  be  appointed.  But  the  promise 
was  violated.  “ Two  slaveholding  missionaries  had  been 
appointed  in  February,  and  one  of  them  was  appointed  again 
the  next  year,  after  the  fact  of  his  slaveholding  had  been 
published  in  the  Minutes  of  the  Baptist  Convention  of  North 
Carolina,  as  a proof  that  the  Home  Missionary  Society  was 
willing  to  employ  slaveholders,  and  as  an  evidence  that  no 
rule  had  been  adopted  at  Providence  prohibiting  the  appoint- 
ment of  slaveholders.” — lb.  149-162. 

THE  AMERICAN  AX'D  FOREIGN  BIBLE  SOCIETY, 

(Baptist)  was  organized  in  1837,  the  year  of  the  martyrdom 
of  Lovejoy,  and  after  the  murderous  spirit  of  slaveholding 
ministers  and  church  members  against  northern  abolitionists 
had  been  fully  revealed.  It  was  a fraternal  union  between 
the  leading  ministers  and  the  great  majority  of  the  lay  brother- 
hood of  Baptists,  at  the  North  and  at  the  South.  It  had,  in 
1841,  fifty-eight  auxiliary  societies  in  the  slaveholding  states. 
It  has  never  been  without  slaveholding  officers. — lb.  p.  58-9. 

The  (Baptist)  “Christian  Index,”  Georgia,  of  November 
16,  1848,  contained  an  appeal  in  behalf  of  this  Bible  Society, 
and  also  an  advertisement,  in  which  “a  plantation  with  some 
twenty  negroes,  stock  of  every  kind,”  &c.,  were  offered  for 
sale. — lb.  p.  323-4. 

At  a meeting  of  this  Society,  it  was  “ Resolved  to  furnish 
every  family  in  the  United  States  with  a Bible.” 

Eld.  Abel  Brown  immediately  rose  and  inquired,  mildly, 
whether  the  resolution  embraced  slaves  ? Scarcely  had  the 
words  escaped  his  lips,  when  the  house  resounded  with  the 
cry  of  “ Order ! order  ! order  \ ” and  the  President,  Eld.  Spen- 
cer H.  Cone,  with  emphatic  voice  and  gesture,  called  out  to 
him, — “ Sit  down,  Sir ! you  are  out  of  order.” — lb.  327. 

The  Society  has  never  published  its  intention  of  giving  the 
Bible  to  the  poor  heathen  in  the  slave  states,  though  it  is  be- 


190 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


lieved  that  money  has  been  repeatedly  offered  to  the  Society 
for  the  object,  and  that  they  have,  invariably,  refused  to  re- 
ceive it. — lb.  327-8. 

And  yet,  in  a communication  to  the  committee  of  the  (Eng- 
lish) General  Baptist  Missionary  Society,  the  Board  of  the 
American  and  Foreign  Bible  Society,  ISTov.  3,  1847,  over  the 
signature  of  Eld.  Spencer  H.  Cone,  said,  of  the  Society, — 

“ They  have  never  withheld  the  Bible  from  the  slave.”  And  they  fur- 
ther say  they  have  reason  to  believe  that  “ the  colored  race,  bond  and  free,” 
receive  a fair  proportion  of  their  books ! 

Of  the  credibility  of  these  statements,  the  American  reader 
can  judge. — lb.  325-334. 

The  Board  further  says:  “We  have  never  designed,  nor 
are  we  conscious  that  we  have  done  aught  to  abet  the  system 
or  practice  of  slavery.”  Yet  the  Society  (1849)  receives  slave- 
holders to  membership,  has  59  auxiliaries,  506  life  members, 
99  life  directors,  and  9 Vice  Presidents,  in  the  slave  states. — 
lb.  p.  333-4. 

“THE  AMERICAN  BAPTIST  PUBLICATION  SOCIETY,” 

is  also  “ a bond  of  union  between  the  North  and  the  South,” 
publishing  nothing  againt  slavery. — lb.  p.  340-44. 

A further  account  of  the  position  of  Baptist  organizations 
in  respect  to  slavery,  will  appear  in  another  chapter,  as  con- 
nected with  the  movements  of  abolitionists,  and  Baptist  “ Free 
Missions.” 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


191 


CHAPTER  XVI. 

POSITION  OF  THE  AMERICAN  CHURCHES,  ETC.,  CONTINUED. 

V.  THE  PROTESTANT  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH. 

Testimony  of  John  Jay,  Esq. — Sermon  of  Mr.  Freeman — Bishop  Ives — Protestant 
Episcopal  Society  of  South  Carolina — Bishop  Bowen — “ The  Churchman”- — Pro- 
hibition of  reading — General  Theological  Seminary — Treatment  of  a Colored 
student,  Alexander  Crummel — Position  of  Rev.  Drs.  Milnor,  Taylor,  Smith,  and 
Hawks — Dissent  of  Bishop  Doane — Exclusion  of  Colored  Ministers  from  Eccle- 
siastical Councils — Episcopal  Convention  at  Philadelphia — St.  Thomas’  Church. 

The  prevailing  temper  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church 
is  thus  testified  of,  by  John  Jay,  Esq.,  of  the  City  of  Hew 
York — himself  an  Episcopalian — in  a pamphlet  entitled, 
“ Thoughts  on  the  Duty  of  the  Episcopal  Church,  in  relation 
to  Slavery.” 

“ Alas ! for  the  expectation  that  she  would  conform  to  the  spirit  of  her 
ancient  mother  ! She  has  not  merely  remained  a mute  and  careless  spec- 
tator of  this  great  conflict  of  truth  and  justice  with  hypocrisy  and  cruelty, 
but  her  very  priests  and  deacons  may  be  seen  ministering  at  the  altar  of 
slavery,  offering  their  talents  and  influence  at  its  unholy  shrine,  and  openly 
repeating  the  awful  blasphemy,  that  the  precepts  of  our  Saviour  sanction 
the  system  of  American  slavery.  Her  Northern  (free  State)  clergy,  with 
rare  exceptions,  whatever  they  may  feel  on  the  subject,  rebuke  it  neither 
in  public  nor  in  private,  and  her  periodicals,  far  from  advancing  the  pro- 
gress of  abolition,  at  times  oppose  our  societies,  impliedly  defending  slavery, 
as  not  incompatible  with  Christianity,  and  occasionally  withholding  informa- 
tion useful  to  the  cause  of  freedom/’ — Birney's  American  Churches,  &c., 
pp.  39,  40. 

“In  1836,  a Clergyman  of  North  Carolina,  of  the  name  of  Freeman, 
preached,  in  presence  of  his  bishop  (Rev.  Levi  S.  Ives,  D.D.,  a native  of  a 
free  State),  two  sermons  on  the  rights  and  duties  of  slaveholders.  In  these 


192 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


he  essayed  to  justify,  from  the  Bible,  the  slavery  of  both  white  men  and 
negroes,  and  insisted  that,  ‘ without  a new  revelation  from  heaven,  no  man 
was  authorized  to  pronounce  slavery  wrong.'  The  two  sermons  were 
printed  in  a pamphlet,  prefaced  with  a letter  to  Mr.  Freeman  from  the 
Bishop  of  North  Carolina,  declaring  that  he  had  ‘ listened  with  most  un- 
feigned pleasure’  to  his  discourses,  and  advised  their  publication,  as  being 
‘ urgently  called  for  at  the  present  time.’ 

“ The  Protestant  Episcopal  Society  for  the  Advancement  of  Christianity 
in  South  Carolina  thought  it  expedient,  and,  in  all  likelihood,  with  Bishop 
Bowen’s  approbation,  to  republish  Mr.  Freeman’s  pamphlet  as  a religious 
tract  !"■ — lb.,  p.  41. 

The  Churchman,  edited  by  a Doctor  of  Divinity,  and  pre-  j 
viously  an  instructor  in  a theological  seminary,  held  the  fol- 
lowing language,  in  respect  to  the  legal  prohibition  of  teaching 
the  colored  population  to  read : 

All  the  knowledge  which  is  necessary  to  salvation — all  the  knowledge 
of  our  duty  towards  God,  and  our  duty  to  our  neighbor,  may  be  communi-  j 
cated  by  oral  instruction,  and  therefore  a law  of  the  land  interdicting  other 
means  of  instruction,  does  not  trench  upon  the  law  of  God.” — lb. 

This  argument  would  justify  the  Romish  Church  in  with- 
holding the  Bible  from  the  laity.  And  by  the  same  kind  of 
logic  it  might  be  argued,  with  much  greater  force,  that,  since 
“the  holy  scriptures  are  able  to  make  men  wise  unto  salva- 
tion,” therefore,  in  a community  that  can  read  and  that  has 
Bibles,  “ a law  of  the  land  interdicting  other  means  of  instruc- 
tion” (oral  instruction  by  preaching)  “does  not  trench  upon 
the  law  of  God.”  If  the  civil  or  ecclesiastical  authorities  may 
interdict  some  means  of  religious  instruction  they  may  inter- 
dict others.  If  they  may  interdict  the  Bible,  they  may,  doubt- 
less, interdict  the  “ Book  of  Common  Prayer”  and  all  the  forms 
of  instruction,  including  the  rituals  of  the  Episcopal  or  any 
other  church.  To  such  results  do  those  drive  their  arguments 
who  would  defend  the  usages  of  slavery.  The  employment 
of  such  arguments  certifies  what  those  usages- are,  and  that  the 
slave  code  is  not  a dead  letter.  The  quarter  they  come  from 
indicates  the  relative  position,  in  respect  to  them,  of  the  Church 
and  the  State.  If  the  prevailing  religion  of  the  country  did 
not  sanction  them,  they  could  not  be  protected  by  the  State 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


193 


laws  ; nay,  such  enactments  would  not  have  been  made.  ISTo 
civil  government,  however  despotic,  can  “ interdict”  the  stand- 
ard books  of  the  prevailing  and  predominant  religion,  and  sur- 
vive the  process.  Whenever  the  prevailing  religion  of  the 
country  shall  be  the  religion  of  the  Bible,  in  which  is  contained 
the  divine  injunction,  “ Search  the  Scriptures,”  the  laws  and  the 
usages  “ interdicting ” the  same  Scriptures  will,  of  course,  be- 
come obsolete,  and  the  slave  system,  which  can  be  supported 
only  by  such  interdiction,  will  fall. 

Alexander  Crummel,  a colored  young  gentleman  of  the 
city  of  New  York,  made  application  to  “ become  a candidate 
for  holy  orders.”  He  received  from  his  bishop  the  usual  cir- 
cular in  such  cases,  in  which  he  was  encouraged  to  “ belong 
to  the  General  Theological  Seminary,”  located  at  New  York. 
In  the  statutes  of  the  Seminary  it  is  expressly  said,  “ Every 
person  producing  to  the  Faculty  satisfactory  evidence  of  his 
having  been  admitted  a candidate  for  holy  orders,”  &c.,  “shall 
be  received  as  a student  of  the  Seminary.”  He  was,  however, 
referred  to  the  Board  of  Trustees.  A committee  was  appointed 
to  consider  and  report,  consisting  of  Bishop  Doane,  Bev.  Drs. 
Milnor,  Taylor,  and  Smith,  and  Messrs.  D.  B.  Ogden,  New- 
ton, and  Johnson.  The  next  day  (June  26,  1839),  Bishop 
Doane,  on  request,  was  excused  from  further  service  on  this 
committee,  and  Bishop  Onderdonk,  of  Pennsylvania,  appointed 
to  fill  the  vacancy.  This  committee  reported,  June  27th,  that 
“ having  deliberately  considered  the  said  petition,  they  are  of 
opinion  that  it  ought  not  to  be  granted ,”  and  they  recommended 
i resolution  accordingly,  which,  on  motion  of  Rev.  Dr.  Hawks, 
.vas  adopted.  Mr.  Huntington  moved  that  the  subject  be 
•eferred  to  the  Faculty,  which  was  lost.  Bishop  Doane,  June 
18th,  asked  leave  to  state  to  the  Board  his  reasons  for  dissent, 
vith  a view  to  the  entering  of  the  same  on  the  minutes.  Leave 
was  not  granted.  During  these  proceedings  Mr.  Crummel  was 
.dvised  by  the  Bishop  of  New  York  to  withdraw  his  petition, 
nd  was  assured  that  the  Faculty  were  -willing  to  impart  to 
dm  private  instruction.  In  the  minutes  of  the  proceedings 
here  was  a careful  avoidance  of  all  allusion  to  the  cause  of 

13 


194 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


excluding  Mr.  Crummel,  leaving  it  to  be  inferred  that  it  was 
for  some  cause  besides  his  color , which  was  not  the  fact.  Mr. 
Crummel  afterwards  became  a member  of  the  Theological 
department  of  Yale  College,  but  not  being  treated  there  as 
white  students  are,  he  was  compelled  to  complete  his  educa- 
tion in  Europe ! He  is  now  an  ordained  clergyman  of  the 
American  Protestant  Episcopal  Church. 

Regularly  ordained  ministers  and  rectors  of  parishes  have 
been  excluded  from  seats  in  the  ecclesiastical  councils  of  their 
church,  solely  on  account  of  their  color.  “ The  rector  of  a 
colored  church  in  Philadelphia  is  excluded  by  an  express 
canon  of  the  Diocesan  Convention.” — Vide  J.  G.  Birney's  Am. 
Churches , pp.  39-41. 

Quite  recently,  the  Episcopal  Convention  of  Pennsylvania, 
sitting  in  Philadelphia,  after  discussion,  decided  against  the 
admission  of  colored  delegates. 

We  learn  from  the  Saturday  Evening  Post,  that  at  the  late  Episcopal 
Convention,  a final  decision  was  made  upon  the  question  of  admitting  repre- 
sentatives from  the  African  Church  of  St.  Thomas. 

The  majority  of  the  committee  appointed  to  consider  the  subject,  reported 
adversely  to  the  admission,  arguing  that  the  color,  and  physical  and  social 
condition  and  education  of  the  blacks,  render  them  unfit  to  participate  in 
legislative  bodies.  The  Rev..  Mr.  Montgomery  submitted  a minority  report, 
which  stated  that,  in  the  month  of  September,  1794,  Bishop  White  laid 
before  the  Convention  the  Constitution  of  St.  Thomas’s  Church,  and  it  was 
then  resolved,  that  as  soon  as  they  should  sign  the  Act  of  Association, 
they  should  be  entitled  to  all  the  privileges  of  the  Diocese.  It  also 
urged  that  the  exclusion  of  delegates  on  account  of  their  color,  was  con- 
trary to  the  spirit  of  Christianity,  and  the  practice  of  the  church  in  apostolic 
times. 

After  a short  discussion,  the  vote  was  taken  upon  adopting  the  report  of 
the  majority,  which  was  decided  as  follows : Clerical,  ayes  44,  nays  42. 
Lay  votes,  by  churches,  ayes  50,  nays  17.  So  it  was  resolved  that  the 
delegates  from  St.  Thomas’  Church  should  not  be  admitted  to  seats  in  the 
Convention  ! ! — Liberator , June  28,  1850. 

The  large  number  of  nays,  in  the  clerical  vote,  deserves 
notice,  as  an  encouraging  indication,  and  as  contrasting 
strongly  and  remarkabty  with  the  vote  of  the  laity. 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


195 


CHAPTER  XVII. 

POSITION  OF  THE  AMERICAN  CHURCHES,  ETC.  (CONTINUED.) 

VI. — OTHER  SECTS — GENERAL  VIEW. 

Protestant  Methodist  Church — Dutch  Reformed — Roman  Catholics — Unitarians,  Uni- 
versalists  and  Restorationists — Free  Will  Baptists — Cumberland  Presbyterians — 
Orthodox  and  Hicksite  Friends — Scotch  Covenanters — General  View.  Testimony 
of  Rev.  James  Smylie,  of  Mississippi— S.  W.  Chr.  Adv.  & Journal — Presb.  Synod, 
Kentucky — Rev.  C.  C.  Jones,  of  Georgia. 

« 

We  have  now  spoken  of  the  principal  religious  denomina- 
tions in  America.  The  reader  has  already  noticed  our  cheer- 
ful recognition  of  the  fact  that  in  all  of  them  there  are  earnest 
friends  of  the  slaves.  Of  some  of  the  smaller  sects,  it  cannot 
be  said  that  their  position  essentially  differs  from  the  preced- 
ing, though  smaller  and  younger  sects  are  commonly  more 
free  than  larger  ones. 

The  Protestant  Methodist  Church  (which  rejects  Epis- 
copacy) has  a Southern  as  well  as  a Northern  membership, 
and  allows  slaveholding.  After  some  agitation  in  their  Gen- 
eral Conference,  and  some  signs  of  a Northern  secession  in 
Western  New  York,  a General  Conference  at  Cincinnati 
declined  any  anti-slavery  action,  the  Northern  Conferences 
did  not  secede,  and  there  has  been  little  or  no  agitation  since. 

The  Dutch  Reformed  Church  is  not  known  to  differ  in 
respect  to  slavery  from  northern  Congregationalists  and  Pres- 
byterians with  which  sects  it  co-operates  in  the  enterprise  of 
Foreign  Missions. 

There  are  some  advocates  of  emancipation  among  the 
Roman  Catholics,  but  it  is  not  known  that  the  number  is 


196 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


large,  or  that  the  question  of  slavery,  or  of  the  treatment  of 
the  colored  people,  has  been  agitated  in  that  communion. 
The  Catholics  in  the  Slave  States  are  as  generally  slavehold- 
ers as  others. 

Unitarians,  Universalists,  and  Kestorationists,  whose 
church  polity  is  generally  Congregational,  were  not  included 
in  our  account  of  the  Congregational  sect.  We  cannot  say 
that  they  differ  widely  from  other  sects  at  the  North,  though 
they  have  little  or  no  direct  ecclesiastical  connections  or 
branches  at  the  South.  They  are  divided  on  the  abolition 
question,  as  other  sects  are. 

A large,  though  select  number  of  Unitarian  ministers, 
signed,  some  time  since,  an  extended  document  against  sla- 
very, but  not  taking,  it  is  believed,  higher  ground  than  the 
“orthodox”  General  Association  of  Massachusetts  and  Gene- 
ral Conference  of  Maine  had  taken  several  years  before. 
Whether  the  document  is  better  honored  by  them,  in  prac- 
tice, as  a general  fact,  we  cannot  tell.  Nor  can  we  conjecture 
how  anti-slavery  resolutions  would  be  disposed  of  in  their 
regularly  constituted  Associations,  if  it  were  their  habit  to 
bear  testimonies  in  that  way.  We  have  heard  of  no  thorough 
anti-slavery  churches  of  that  sect,  or  of  the  withdrawal  of 
ministers  and  laymen  for  re-organization,  on  account  of  the 
slave  question,  though  there  are  earnest  and  active  abolition- 
ists among  them,  and  of  the  radical  type  not  approved  by  the 
late  Dr.  Channing. 

The  statements  made  in  the  last  sentence  may,  perhaps, 
apply  to  Universalists  and  Eestorationists.  A large,  if  not  a 
general  Association  of  Universalists,  some  time  since, 
adopted  a general  testimony  against  slavery. 

Of  all  these,  as  sects , we  must  however  say,  that  the  weight 
of  their  influence,  especially  at  the  ballot-box,  as  in  the  case 
of  the  larger  sects,  is  not  against  slavery,  but  in  its  support. 

And  we  cannot  here,  and  in  this  particular,  make  an  excep- 
tion in  favor  of  some  other  sects,  as  the  “Orthodox  ” and  the 
“Hicksite”  Friends,  and  the  Free-Will  Baptists,  who 
claim  the  merit  of  being  opposed  to  slavery,  and  whose  printed 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


197 


“ testimonies  ” to  that  effect  have  not  been  wanting.*  To  say 
nothing  now  of  their  general  treatment  of  active  abolitionists 
belonging  to  their  own  sect  (a  topic  of  which  we  are  not 
directly  speaking  in  this  chapter),  the  general  influence  of 
even  these  sects,  or  of  a majority  of  their  members,  especially 
at  the  ballot-box,  has  been,  and  still  is,  on  the  side  of  the 
slave  power,  in  voting  for  slaveholders  and  their  supporters. 

The  majority  of  “Friends,”  of  both  classes,  have  not  only 
voted  for  slaveholding  candidates  for  the  Presidency,  but,  in 
the  case  of  the  late  General  Taylor,  for  a candidate  whose 
sudden  and  surprising  popularity  (first  at  the  South,  and  then 
at  the  North)  was  owing  wholly  to  the  terrible  success  (some- 
times by  the  aid  of  bloodhounds)  with  which  he  prosecuted 
aggressive  pro-slavery  wars,  in  further  contempt  of  the  pro- 
fessed principles  of  Friends. 

If  such  be  the  position  of  what  have  been  called  the  anti- 
slavery sects,  by  way  of  distinction,  what  must  be  the  position 
of  the  others  ? Who  can  marvel  that,  in  the  case  just  adverted 
to,  the  preponderating  influence  of  Presbyterian  and  Congre- 
gational ministers  should  have  been  cast  into  the  same  scale 
with  the  Friends?  And  what  can  be  said  in  excuse  of  such 
a course,  when  an  united  rally  at  the  polls,  by  professed 
Christians  of  all  sects,  even  in  the  free  States  alone,  in  oppo- 
sition to  the  slave  power,  would  so  manifestly  and  so  speedily 
terminate  its  iron  and  bloody  sway  ? 

In  due  justice  to  Free-Will  Baptists,  it  should  be  further 
said,  that  their  periodical  publications  and  ecclesiastical  bodies 
have  generally,  if  not  uniformly,  taken  anti-slavery  ground, 
from  the  beginning  of  the  agitation  on  the  subject.  And  at 
an  early  day  they  separated  themselves  (the  Northern  and 
principal  portion  of  them)  from  a considerable  body  of  South- 
ern Free-Will  Baptists,  who  refused  to  relinquish  slavehold- 


* It  is  possible  for  a sect  or  religious  body,  in  its  public  or  corporate  character,  and 
by  its  official  and  formal  declarations  and  proceedings,  to  maintain  a strong  testi- 
mony against  slavery,  and  even  (as  in  the  case  of  the  Free-Will  Baptists  and 
Friends)  to  withdraw  religious  fellowship  from  slaveholders  ; while  the  great  body 
of  its  members  and  officers,  for  political  ends , sustain  slavery  at  the  polls. 


198 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


ing.  Their  testimony,  on  the  whole,  is  perhaps  not  behind 
that  of  the  “ Friends.” 

The  Scotch  Covenanters,  or  Associate  Reformed  Pres- 
byterian Church,  is  anti-slavery,  and  having  scruples  (on 
other  grounds)  that  deter  them  from  voting  at  all  under  our 
government,  they  are  free  from  pro-slavery  voting. 

The  Cumberland  Presbyterians  have  sometimes  been 
described  as  anti-slavery,  but  their  “ General  Assembly  refuse 
to  legislate  on  the  subject  of  slavery,  on  the  plea  that,  as  spir- 
itual bodies,  they  have  no  cognizance  of  civil  matters.” — An. 
Report  Am.  &•  For.  A.  S.  Soc.,  1852,  p.  19. 

“The  Disciples” — sometimes  called  Campbellites  (from 
their  founder,  Alexander  Campbell) — are  numerous  at  the 
West  and  South.  They  are  slaveholders  and  slaves.  Pres. 
Shannon,  of  Bacon  College,  a prominent  member  of  the  sect, 
says: 

1,1  Thus  did  Jehovah  stereotype  his  approbation  of  domestic  slavery,  by 
incorporating  it  into  the  Jewish  religion,  the  only  religion  on  earth  that  had 
the  divine  sanction.” 

Alexander  Campbell  himself,  in  his  “ Millennial  Harbinger ,” 
says : 

“ There  is  not  one  verse  in  the  Bible  inhibiting  it,  but  many  regulating 
it.  It  is  not,  then,  we  conclude,  immoral.” — Pillsbury's  “ Church  as  it  is ,” 
pp.  52-3. 

Of  the  anti-slavery  churches,  sects,  ecclesiastical  bodies, 
and  missionary  organizations  that  have  grown  out  of  the 
abolition  movement,  and  yvhich  are  controlled  by  abolition- 
ists, we  shall  give  some  account  in  another  connection. 

general  view. 

The  record  we  have  presented  looks  in  the  direction  of  a 
general  estimate  of  the  religious  influences  of  the  country  on 
fli€$  slave  question.  And  it  indicates  the  position  of  the  pro- 
fessed Christianity  of  the  North,  as  represented  by  the  differ- 
ent sects.  If  there  be  any  further  inquiry  needed  respecting 
the  system  that  is  thus  sustained,  or  whether,  in  the  hands  of 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


199 


professing  Christians  of  the  different  sects  at  the  South,  it  be 
the  thing  that  its  opposers  represent  it  to  be,  a few  testimonies 
may  satisfy  the  inquirer. 

“ The  Rev.  James  Smylie,  A.M.,  of  the  Amite  Presbytery,  Mississippi, 
in  a pamphlet  published  by  him”  (about  fifteen  years  ago),  “ in  favor  of 
American  slavery,  says  : 

“ If  slavery  be  a sin,  and  advertising  and  apprehending  slaves,  with  a 
view  to  restore  them  to  their  masters,  is  a direct  violation  of  the  divine  law, 
and  if  the  buying,  selling,  and  holding  a slave  FOR  THE  SAKE  OF 
GAIN,  is  a heinous  sin  and  scandal,  then  verily,  three-fourths  of  all  the 
Episcopalians,  Methodists,  Baptists,  and  Presbyterians,  in  eleven  States  of 
the  Union,  are  of  the  devil.  They  hold,  if  they  do  not  buy  and  sell  slaves, 
and,  (with  few  exceptions,)  they  hesitate  not  to  apprehend  and  restore  run- 
away slaves,  when  in  their  power.” 

The  Editor  of  South  West  Christian  Advocate  and  Journal, 
a periodical  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  corroborates 
this  general  statement,  so  far  as  that  Church  is  concerned,  as 
follows : 

“ If,  however,  the  holding  of  men,  women,  and  children,  in  bondage, 
under  the  ordinary  circumstances  that  connect  themselves  with  slavery 
in  the  Southern  States,  constitutes  us  a pro-slavery  Church,  then  we  are 
a pro-slavery  Church  in  this  restricted  or  privately  understood  interpretation, 
for  we  do  not  regard  slaveholding  as  sinful,  as  it  exists  in  the  Southern 
States,  provided  the  master  feeds,  instructs,  and  governs  his  slaves, 
according  to  the  directions  laid  down  in  God’s  word.” 

By  the  testimony  of  the  Presbyterian  Synod  of  Kentucky, 
of  Eev.  C.  C.  Jones  of  Georgia,  and  also  of  the  Synod  of  S. 
Carolina  and  Georgia,  the  fact  is  established  that  slaveholding 
church  members  in  general  do  not  give  their  slaves  any  more 
religious  instruction  than  other  slaveholders  do,  which,  in  most 
cases  is  none  at  all,  so  that  the  slaves — to  use  their  own  lan- 
guage—are  in  the  condition  of  heathenism. 

Putting  these  things  together,  we  have  a complete  and  full 
refutation  of  the  pretence  that  Christian  slaveholders  hold, 
slaves  for  their  own  good , that  they  make  a wide  distinction 
between  slavetrading  and  slaveholding,  and  that  they  treat 
their  slaves  better  than  they  are  generally  treated  by  others. 


200  ' GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 

Any  amount  of  testimony  might  be  added,  to  the  same  ■ 
point.  We  only  advert  to  the  topic,  in  this  place,  to  exhibit, 
as  clearly  as  we  can,  in  one  view,  the  relation  of  our  religious 
sects,  in  America  in  general,  to  the  condition  and  treatment 
of  the  slaves,  and  to  slaveholding. 


PREJUDICE  AGAINST  COLOR. 

That  prejudice  against  the  colored  people,  which  constitutes 
one  of  the  main  pillars  of  slavery,  is  fostered  in  most  of  the 
Churches,  including  some  that — in  other  respects — bear  testi- 
mony against  the  system.  Their  support  of  the  Colonization 
Society  (as  will  be  shown  in  its  place,)  is  a sufficient  indication 
of  the  fact.  Another  evidence  is  the  erection  of  the  negro  pew, 
and,  in  some  Churches,  the  custom  of  administering  the  Lord’s 
Supper  to  colored  persons,  by  themselves,  after  the  distribu- 
tion to  the  whites.  In  Theological  Seminaries,  as  well  as  in 
Colleges,  the  same  spirit  of  caste  is  commonly  witnessed.  In 
some  cases,  it  invades  the  sanctuary  of  the  dead,  and  forbids 
the  interment  of  colored  persons  in  burial  places  designed  for 
the  whites. 

A Protestant  Episcopal  Church  at  Eye,  Westchester  Co., 
(N.  Y.,)  accepted  a deed  of  gift  of  ground  for  a cemetery,  a 
condition  of  which  deed  was,  that  no  colored  person  should  be 
buried  within  the  enclosures.  The  condition  is  carefully 
fulfilled.  In  selling  burial  lots  to  individuals,  the  officials  of 
the  Church  having  charge  of  that  business,  insert  the  same 
conditions  in  the  conveyance.  This  fact  is  stated  on  authority 
of  Hon.  William  Jay,  a member  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church,  and  residing  in  the  same  county. 

A Presbyterian  Church  in  Philadelphia  advertised  burial 
lots  for  sale,  with  the  particular  recommendation  of  them,  that 
no  colored  persons,  or  executed  criminals,  were  buried  in  the 
cemetery. 

A Congregational  Church  in  New  Haven,  Con.,  parcelled 
off,  in  its  cemetery,  a side  lot,  for  the  burial  of  colored  persons, 
after  the  manner  of  the  negro  pew.  But  it  became  necessary 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


201 


to  enlarge  the  cemetery,  and  bury  whites  on  the  other  side  of 
the  colored  people,  so  that  they  now  occupy  the  center ! An 
omen,  perhaps,  of  the  future  position  of  that  despised  race,  in 
America. 

To  the  credit  of  Roman  Catholics,  it  must  be  said,  that  they 
maintain  no  arrangements  of  caste  founded  in  color,  in  their 
Churches. 


202 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


CHAPTER  XVIII. 


POSITION  OF  THE  AMERICAN  CHURCHES,  ETC.  CONTINUED. 

VII. — VOLUNTARY  SOCIETIES  CONNECTED  WITH  SEVERAL  SECTS.  J 
CONCLUDING  REMARKS. 


American  Board — Employment  of  Slaves  by  Missionaries — A Missionary  a slave- 
owner— Slaveliolding  tolerated  in  Mission  Churches — Board,  at  Rochester,  decline 
interfering  (1844) — At  Brooklyn,  1845,  decide  against  excluding  pious  Slaveholders 
from  Church  ordinances — In  1846,  at  New  Haven,  decline  further  action — In  1847, 
at  Buffalo,  promise  inquiry— Mission  and  Letter  of  Mr.  Treat — Reply  of  Choctaw 
Missionaries — Vindicate  their  right  to  have  slaves — Rejected  resolutions  of  Dr. 1 
Bacon,  at  Brooklyn  (1845) — Doctrine  of  “ organic  sins.” — American  Home  Mis- 
sionary Society— No  rule  to  exclude  Slaveholders  from  Mission  Churches — Has 
greatly  increased  the  list  of  its  slaveholding  Churches  since  1842 — Other  agencies. 
— American  Bible  Society — No  Bibles  for  Slaves — Offer  of  funds  for  that  object 
rejected — Auxiliary  Society  at  New  Orleans  disclaimed  the  intent  to  supply 
colored  people — Auxiliary  Society,  Orleans  County,  N.  Y.,  refused  a donation  of  , 
Bibles  to  fugitives — Modified  but  doubtful  position  of  the  Parent  Society  in  1849. 

- — American  Tract  Society — Publishes  nothing  against  Slavery — Mutilation  of 
books. — American  Sunday  School  Union — Rejects  books  that  disapprove 
slavery — Closing  remarks. 


MISSIONS — AMERICAN  BOARD. 

The  following  statements  are  from  a paper,  adopted  by  the 
Illinois  Central  Association,  and  prepared  by  a committee, 
consisting  of  Pres.  Blanchard,  Rev.  D.  Gore,  and  G.  Dewy,  at 
Lafayette,  October  9 th,  1849*  : 


“The  action  which  the  Board  has  taken  from  year  to  year,  on  the  subject 
of  slavery,  is  as  follows,  viz : 

“ 1.  Some  thirteen  years  since,  the  Prudential  Committee,  in  correspond- 
ence on  the  subject,  declared  against  the  missionaries  hiring  slaves,  except 
in  cases  of  emergency. 


* National  Era,  Nov.  8,  1849. 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


203 


“2.  In  1841,  eight  years  ago,  at  Philadelphia,  the  subject  came  before 
the  Board  on  petition  of  certain  ministers  of  New  Hampshire,  who  represent 
themselves  as  supporters  of  the  Board,  not  Abolitionists,  yet  opposed  to 
slavery  ; and  they  ask  the  Board  to  declare  itself  distinctly  on  that  subject, 
as  they  had  done  on  the  subject  of  other  public  vices  which  obstructed  the 
missionary  work.  To  this  New  Hampshire  petition,  the  Board,  by  their 
committee’s  report,  adopted,  reply  that : 

“ ‘ The  Board  can  sustain  no  relation  to  slavery  which  implies  approba- 
tion of  the  system,  and,  as  a Board,  can  have  no  connection  or  sympathy 
with  it.’ 

“At  that  time,  however,  slaves  were  employed  in  the  service  of  the 
mission-schools,  the  owners  being  paid  for  their  service,  and  slaveholders 
were  without  objection  received  to  the  mission  churches ; both  which 
practices  have  continued  ever  since,  and  still  continue.  One  of  their 
missionaries,  too,  was  at  that  time  a slave  owner — the  Rev.  Mr.  Wilson,  of 
Africa. 

“ In  1842,  at  Norwich,  Connecticut,  several  ‘ memorials  and  other  papers 
on  the  subject  of  slavery’  were  read  by  Mr.  Greene,  and  referred.  The 
Board,  in  their  answer,  say,  ‘ They  cannot  but  hope  that  he  (Mr.  Wilson) 
will'  ere  long  be  able,  with  such  counsel  and  aid  as  the  Prudential  Com- 
mittee may  give,  to  accomplish  the  object  (the  liberation  of  his  slaves)  in  a 
manner  satisfactory  to  himself,  and  kind  and  beneficent  to  them  (i.  e.,  his 
slaves).’  . 

“In  1843,  at  Rochester,  New  York,  one  memorial  on  slavery  was  read 
by  Mr.  Greene,  and  the  Board  refer,  for  answer,  to  their  former  action  on 
the  subject. 

“ In  1844,  at  a very  large  meeting  of  the  Board  at  Worcester,  Massa- 
chusetts, memorials  on  the  subject  of  slavery  were  committed  to  Drs. 
Woods  and  Tyler,  Chancellor  Walworth,  Chief  Justice  Williams,  Drs. 
Stowe,  Sandford,  Pomroy,  Tappan,  McLane,  and  Secretary  Greene. 

“The  memorials  this  year  set  forth  that  slavery  is  1 actually  tolerated ’ 
in  the  Mission  Churches  among  the  Choctaws,  ‘by  the  admission  of  slave- 
holders as  members,’  to  the  hindering  of  the  missionary  work,  and  dimin- 
ishing the  funds  of  the  Board.  In  their. answer,  which  was  adopted  by  the 
Board,  the  committee  reiterate  the  words  of  the  Philadelphia  report,  three 
years  before,  ‘ That  the  Board  can  sustain  no  relation  to  slavery  which  im- 
plies approbation  of  the  system,’  &c.  But  they  add,  as  explaining  that 
clause,  ‘ plainly  intimating  that  we  consider  it  an  obvious  evil,  the  removal 
of  which  does  not  fall  within  the  province  of  the  Board.’ 

“ They  ask  further  time  to  obtain  information  as  to  slavery  in  the  Choc- 
taw mission  churches,  but  observe,  meantime,  that  missionaries  there,  so 
far  as  facts  appear,  have  been  guilty  of  ‘ no  violation  or  neglect  of  duty.’ 

“ In  1845,  the  Board  met  at  Brooklyn,  New  York,  and  much  discussion 


204 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


was  elicited  by  a long  report  from  the  above  committee,  which  report,  with 
proposed  amendments,  was  re-committed,  reported  again,  and  finally  unani- 
mously adopted.  This  celebrated  Brooklyn  report  declares,  among  other 
things,  that  in  the  Cherokee  and  Choctaw  missions,  ‘ both  masters  and 
slaves  were  received  into  the  churches  on  the  same  principles.’ 

“ ‘ That  Baptism  and  the  Lord’s  Supper  cannot  be  scripturally  and  right- 
fully denied  to  those  who  give  credible  evidence  of  piety ;’  and  that, 

“ ‘ The  missionaries,  in  connection  with  the  churches  which  they  have 
gathered,  are  the  sole  judges  of  the  sufficiency  of  this  evidence.’ 

“ The  committee  further  report,  that  at  that  time  there  were  in  the  Choc- 
taw churches  20  slaveholders  and  131  slaves.  In  the  Cherokee  churches, 
15  slaveholders  and  21  slaves.  Total,  35  slaveholders  and  152  slaves,  in 
a total  membership  of  843.  And  this  Brooklyn  report  further  explicitly 
recognizes  the  doctrine  that  both  ‘ master  and  slave  may  be  gathered  into 
the  fold  of  Christ,’  and  intimates  that  this  is  the  way  to  prepare  the  master 
to  consent  to  emancipation. 

“ In  1846,  at  New  Haven,  Connecticut,  papers  on  the  subject  of  slavery 
were  laid  before  the  Board,  from  the  General  Congregational  Association 
of  Illinois,  New  Haven  East  Association,  and  other  bodies.  They  were 
referred  to  a committee,  consisting  of  Chancellor  Walworth,  Drs.  Parker. 
Stowe,  and  others,  and  they  reported  : 

“ ‘ That  they  consider  the  further  agitation  of  the  subject  here  as  calcu- 
lated injuriously  to  affect  the  great  cause  of  missions  in  which  the  Board  is 
engaged.’ 

“Up  to  this  time,  the  doctrines  on  which  the  Board  stands  respecting 
slavery  are  : 

“ 1.  That  slavery,  though  an  admitted  evil,  is  one  which  the  Board  is  not 
responsible  for  removing  ; and 

“ 2.  That  masters  and  slaves  are  to  be  received  into  fellowship  in  the 
churches,  giving  evidence  of  piety  ; and 

“3.  That  the  missionaries  and  churches  among  the  Choctaws  are  the 
only  judges  of  the  credibility  of  that  evidence. 

“In  1847, the  Board  met  at  Buffalo,  New  York,  when  an  honorary  mem- 
ber of  the  Board  moved  that  a committee  be  appointed  to  inquire  whether 
any  further  action  was  required  in  reference  to  slavery  among  the  Choctaws 
and  Cherokees.  The  Secretaries  replied,  that  ‘ they  had  every  possible 
disposition  to  remove  slavery  and  every  other  evil  and  sin  as  speedily  as 
possible  from  the  mission  churches,’  and  that  one  of  their  number  would 
visit  the  missions  in  question,  and  the  whole  subject  of  their  slavery  rela- 
tions would  come  up  on  his  report  the  following  year. 

“ Mr.  Secretary  Treat  accordingly  visited  those  Indian  missions,  and  the 


before  the  public.  The  material  facts  shown  by  his  report  are,  the  one  con 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


205 


tained  in  the  Brooklyn  report  of  1845,  viz  : that  the  mission  churches  receive 
slaveholders  to  fellowship  ; and  slaves,  to  a certain  extent,  are  hired  of  their 
owners  to  work  at  the  Choctaw  boarding-schools.  While  this  is  the  fact, 
the  Indian  youth  must  of  course  learn  contempt  of  labor  along  with  the 
rudiments  of  science,  and  slavery  must  become  part  of  their  intellectual 
culture,  if  not  of  their  religious. 

“ Of  this  the  Prudential  Committee  seem  to  have  been  convinced,  and 
hence,  in  Mr.  Treat’s  celebrated  letter  of  June  22d,  last  year,  the  Pruden- 
tial Committee  declare,  explicitly,  that  the  Board  could  never  have  intended 
that  slaveholders  should  be  received  to  church-membership,  ‘ without 

INQUIRING  AS  TO  THEIR  VIEWS  AND  FEELINGS  IN  REGARD  TO  SLAVERY.’  And 

if  ‘ he  holds  and  treats  those  for  whom  Christ  died  with  a selfish  spirit 
and  for  selfish  purposes,’  they  say,  ‘ for  admitting  such  an  one  to  the 
privileges  of  the  people  of  God,  especially  in  the  advanced  stage  to  which 
your  mission  has  arrived,  we  know  no  warrant  whatever.’  And  while  they 
hold  this  strong  and  explicit  language  on  the  subject  of  receiving  slavehold- 
ers into  the  church,  they  use  far  stronger  and  more  explicit  language  on  the 
subject  of  employing  slaves  at  the  schools.  They  say  on  this  subject  to  the 
missionaries,  ‘ If  you  can  discover  no  method  by  which  a change  can  be 
effected,  we  submit  for  your  consideration  whether  it  be  not  desirable  to 
request  the  Choctaw  government  to  relieve  us  from  our  engagement  in 
respect  to  the  boarding-schools.’ — Treat’s  Letter,  June  22,  1848. 

The  report  of  Mr.  Treat  of  his  visit  to  the  Choctaw  and  Cherokee 
missions,  with  the  correspondence  growing  out  of  it,  were  reported  to  the 
Board  at  their  meeting  in  Boston  last  year ; and  while  the  anti-slavery  por- 
tions of  the  American  churches  regarded  the  ground  taken  by  the  Prudential 
Committee,  and  the  Board  as  silently  acquiescing  in  it,  as  essentially  anti- 
slavery  and  satisfactory  to  reasonable  Christians,*  loud  and  bitter  complaints 
were  raised  by  the  missionaries  among  the  Choctaws,  and  generally  by  the 
pro-slavery  portions  of  the  church.  These  complaints  against  the  Pruden- 
tial Committee  have  been  extensively  published  during  the  last  year  in  the 
New  York  Observer,  Christian  Observer,  and  other  Presbyterian  papers 
further  South. 


* tVith  perfect  respect  to  the  Committee  that  drafted,  and  the  Association  that 
idopted  this  paper,  the  author  submits  that  the  ground  taken  by  the  Prudential 
Committee,  evfen  if  it  had  been  maintained  by  the  Board,  o-vght  not  to  be  satisfactory 
o “reasonable  Christians.”  By  the  implication  that  slaves  are  sometimes  held 
ifheriaUe  than  “with  a selfish  spirit  and  for  selfish  purposes” — and  that  such  slave- 
•lolding  is  consistent  with  church-membership,  the  very  gist  of  the  whole  contro- 
versy is  relinquished.  Such  a diluted  testimony  only  invited  the  resistance  it 
received.  If  slaveholding  is  wrong , there  is  no  occasion  or  propriety  in  asking  the 
andidate’s  “ views  and  feelings  in  regard  to  slavery”  while  he  continues  the  prac- 
ice,  and  is  to  be  indulged  in  it.  But  if  the  practice  be  right,  the  question  becomes 
manifestly  useless. 


206 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


“ In  these  circumstances,  the  public  looked  with  intense  interest  to  the 
late  meeting  of  the  Board  at  Pittsfield,  Massachusetts.  If  the  Board  ever 
intends  to  cease  to  sustain  slaveholding  mission-churches,  and  slave-hiring 
mission-schools,  it  would  seem  that  thirteen  years  is  ample  time  for  the 
Board  to  make  up  its  mind  to  declare,  at  least,  that  such  is  its  future  inten- 
tion. But,  instead  of  any  such  intimation,  Mr.  Secretary  Treat  simply 
reported  to  the  Board  an  apologetic  and  deprecatory  note  issued  by  the 
Secretaries  during  the  year,  in  answer  to  the  complaints  against  Treat’s 
letter,  and  the  reply  to  that  letter  of  the  Choctaw  missionaries.  In  this 
note,  issued  from  the  mission-house  in  February  last,  the  Secretaries 
say  : ‘ The  committee  have  never  had  any  intention  of  “cutting  off”  the 
Choctaw  mission  from  its  connection  with  the  Board,’  but  repeat  the  expres- 
sion of  their  ‘ undiminished  confidence  in  the  integrity  of  these  servants  of 
Christ.’ 

“ The  reply  of  the  Choctaw  missionaries  to  Mr.  Treat’s  letter  is  written  i 
in  a softer  tone  than  their  letter  to  which  Mr.  Treat’s  was  a reply',  but  it 
abates  no  whit  of  their  former  pretensions,  and  surrenders  no  principle  laid 
dowm  in  their  former  letter. 

“ On  the  subject  of  receiving  slaveholders  to  church-membership,-  a prin- 
cipal point  of  Mr.  Treat’s  letter  of  June  22d,  they  do  not  deign  to  say 
one  word  ; but  simply  observe,  that  five  and  twenty  years  ago  they  thought 
‘ the  subject  of  slavery,  as  it  relates  to  their  mission,  was  settled  upon  a 
scriptural  basis.’ 

“On  the  subject  of  hiring  slaves  of  their  owners  to  do  the  work  of  the 
mission-schools,  they  at  great  length  vindicate  their  right  to  do  so, 
placing  it  upon  the  same  ground  with  using  slave-grown  produce  in  the  free 
States.  They,  however,  feebly  intimate  their  willingness  to  ‘ employ  none 
but  free  help,  provided  it  can  be  obtained  ;’  but  assert,  over  and  again,  their 
intention  to  hire  slaves,  if  necessary. 

“ The  above  papers  were  submitted  to  the  Board,  with  an  intimation  that 
no  action  upon  them  was  desired,  on  the  ground  that  the  correspondence 
(now  of  thirteen  years’  standing)  is  not  yet  completed  ! 

Dr.  Bacon,  of  New  Haven,  moved  the  reference  of  the  subject  to  a 
special  committee  ; but  this  motion  was  overruled  by  a proposition  of  Chan- 
cellor Walworth,  and  the  subject  passed  off  without  action  or  discussion, 
with  a remark  of  the  Secretary’s  report,  as  reported  by  the  N.  Y.  Evangelist , 

‘ That  the  mission  are  willing  to  do  all  that  can  properly  be  required  of  them 
to  place  this  subject  on  the  desired  basis.’ 

“ In  respect  to  the  above,  it  will  be  observed  : 

“ 1.  That  the  missionaries  intimate  no  intention  ever  to  cease  receiving 
slaveholders  to  their  churches,  but  vindicate  the  practice  as  scriptural. 

“ 2.  That  the  Board,  by  its  Brooklyn  report,  to  which  it  adheres,  has  con- 
stituted them  and  their  churches  sole  judges  on  the  subject. 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


207 


• •u3.  It  follows,  that  contributors  to  the  Board’s  fund  must  perpetually,  so 
far  as  any  contrary  hope  appears,  contribute  to  the  propagation  of  a slave- 
holding Christianity.  And, 

<>  4.  That  slaves  are  to  do  the  work  of  the  mission-schools  till,  in  the 
missionaries’  judgment,  it  is  practicable  to  obtain  free  help.” 

If  anything  further  he  wanting  to  define  the  position  of  the 
American  Board,  it  may  be  furnished  by  an  inspection  of  the 
rejected  amendments  to  the  celebrated  Brooklyn  Beport  of 
1845.  On  that  occasion,  the  late  Amos  A.  Phelps  presented 
and  advocated  a series  of  resolutions,  characterizing  the 
“practice  of  slaveholding  a great  moral  evil,  entirely  opposed 
to  the  spirit  and  principles  of  the  gospel  ” — declaring  that  the 
Board  could  not  appoint  or  sustain  slaveholders  as  mission- 
aries— and  calling  on  the  missionaries  to  treat  slaveholding  as 
they  do  other  sins. 

Dr.  Leonard  Bacon,  of  New  Haven,  Conn.,  -who  said  he 
could  not  consent  to  the  amendment  of  Mr.  Phelps,  introduced 
in  room  of  them  the  following: 

“ 1.  Resolved,  That  inasmuch  as  the  system  of  domestic  slavery,  under 
every  modification,  is  at  war  with  the  principles  of  Christianity,  with  natu- 
ral justice,  with  industry  and  thrift,  with  habits  of  subjection  to  law,  and 
with  whatever  tends  to  the  advancement  of  civilization  and  the  ascendency 
of  the  gospel ; and  inasmuch  as  it  brings  upon  every  community  which 
establishes  and  upholds  it,  the  righteous  displeasure  of  God,  and  the  repro- 
bation of  the  civilized  and  Christian  world,  the  existence  of  slavery  in  the 
Cherokee  and  Choctaw  nations  is  deeply  to  be  lamented  by  their  friends, 
and  particularly  by  this  Board,  as  having  been,  for  more  than  a quarter  of  a 
century,  engaged  in  labors  tending  to  their  moral,  intellectual,  and  social 
advancement. 

“ 2.  Resolved,  That  while  the  strongest  language  of  reprobation  is  not  too 
strong  to  be  applied  to  the  system  of  slavery,  truth  and  justice  require  this 
Board  to  say  that  the  mere  relation  of  a master  to  one  whom  the  constitu- 
tion of  society  has  made  a slave,  is  not  to  be  regarded  as  in  all  cases  such 
a sin  as  to  require  the  exclusion  of  the  master,  without  further  inquiry,  from 
Christian  ordinances. 

“ 3.  Resolved,  That  the  missionaries  of  this  Board,  everywhere,  are 
expected  to  admit  to  Christian  ordinances  those,  and  only  those,  who  give 
satisfactory  evidence  of  having  become  new  creatures  in  Christ. 

“ 4.  Resolved,  That  the  master  who  buys  and  sells  human  beings,  as  mer- 
chandise, for  gain — who  does  not  recognize  in  respect  to  his  servants  the 


208 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


divine  sanctity  of  their  relations  as  husbands  and  wives,  and  as  parents  and 
children — who  permits  them  to  live  and  die  in  ignorance  of  God,  and  of 
God’s  word,  who  does  not  render  to  his  servants  that  which  is  just  and 
equal,  or  who  refuses  to  recognize,  heartily  and  practically,  their  dignity 
and  worth,  as  reasonable  and  accountable  beings,  for  whom  Christ  has  died, 
does  not  give  satisfactory  evidence  of  being  born  of  God,  or  having  the 
Spirit  of  Christ.” 

Though  these  resolutions  abstain  carefully  from  condemn- 
ing slaveholding  as  sinful — a doctrine  which  the  mover,  in 
his  speech,  earnestly  disclaimed,  saying,  “ the  churches  cannot 
stand  such  nonsense  ” (producing  a broad  laugh  among  the 
members  of  the  Board),  yet  they  too  clearly  condemned 
known  and  existing  practices,  called  abuses,  to  meet  the  exi- 
gencies of  the  Board. 

Dr.  De  Witt,  very  sagaciously,  said — “ These  resolutions 
will  introduce  a disturbing  influence,  and  occasion  future 
inconvenienced'’ 

On  motion  of  Chief  Justice  Williams,  of  Connecticut,  they 
were  referred,  together  with  Mr.  Phelps’  resolutions,  to  a select 
committee  of  five,  of  which  he  was  made  chairman.  The 
committee  reported,  verbally,  the  next  morning-,  recommend- 
ing the  adoption  of  the  original  report  of  Dr.  Woods,  without 
the  amendments.  Mr.  Phelps  then  promptly  renewed  the 
substance  of  his  former  resolutions,  in  a more  condensed 
form,  which  he  moved  as  an  amendment,  as  follows  : 

“ And  finally,  in  accordance  with,  and  in  reply  to  the  memorials  submitted 
to  it  from  Worcester  county  and  elsewhere  at  its  present  meeting,  the  Board 
deem  it  right  and  proper  to  say,  that  its  funds  cannot  and  will  not  be  expended 
in  maintaining  slaveholding  missionaries,  or  building  up  slaveholding  churches ; 
that  in  carrying  out  the  general  principles  laid  down  in  the  first  part  of  the 
foregoing  report,  in  their  practical  application  to  the  question  of  receiving 
slaveholders  to,  and  retaining  in  the  missionary  churches,  the  Board  will 
expect  its  missionaries  and  churches  to  treat  slaveholding,  in  the  matter  of 
instruction,  admonition  and  discipline,  in  the  same  manner  as  they  should 
and  would  treat  drunkenness,  gaming,  falsehood,  bigamy,  idolatry,  and  the 
like  ; and  that  whenever  and  wherever  it  shall  appear  that  the  missionaries 
and  the  churches,  in  exercise  of  their  appropriate  liberty,  do  not  do  so,  it 
will  be  the  duty  of  this  Board,  in  the  exercise  of  its  liberty,  to  dissolve  far- 
ther connection  with  them.” 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


209 


After  some  ineffectual  efforts  to  dodge  a direct  vote  on  this 
amendment,  it  was  voted  upon,  and  voted  down,  a few  voices 
only  being  heard  in  its  favor. 

This  meeting  of  the  Board  was  also  made  famous  by  the 
advocacy  of  the  doctrine,  involved  in  the  report,  that  “ organic 
sins,’1  or  sins  “interwoven  in  the  structure  of  society,”  or 
sanctioned  by  civil  government,  are  not  to  be  considered  and 
treated,  in  the  administration  of  church  discipline,  as  personal 
sins— as  though  personality  could  be  impaired,  or  individual 
accountability  set  aside,  by  practicing  an  iniquity  framed  or 
allowed  by  civil  rulers,  or  by  following  a multitude  to  do 
evil ! 


THE  AMERICAN  HOME  MISSIONARY  SOCIETY. 

This  society,  supported  by  Presbyterians  and  Congregation- 
alists,  builds  up,  with  professions  of  the  most  liberal  and  dig- 
nified impartiality,  either  a pro-slavery  or  an  anti-slavery 
religion,  provided  it  be  manifested  in  accordance  with  the  ap- 
proved forms  and  technicalities  of  the  allied  sects,  north  and 
south,  co  operating  in  the  enterprise.  In  this,  it  stands,  sub- 
stantially, on  the  same  ground  with  the  American  Board. 

“ There  is,  to  this  day,  no  vote,  or  rule,  or  usage  of  either  Board,  to 
keep  slaveholders,  who  are  unobjectionable  in  other  respects,  out  of  their 
churches  at  home  or  abroad,  or  even  to  prevent  slaves  being  hired  of  their 
masters  to  labor  at  the  Mission  Schools,  where  pagan  youth  are  congregated 
to  form,  under  Christian  education,  their  ideas  of  Gospel  principles  and 
practice. 

“ The  Home  Society  has,  moreover,  instead  of  diminishing,  increased 
its  slaveholding  dependencies  during  the  present  era  of  anti-slavery  agita- 
tion. Since  1842 — that  is,  in  the  seven  years  preceding  the  last  report — 
the  American  Home  Missionary  Society  lacks  but  five  of  having  trebled 
the  slaveholding  churches  under  her  patronage,  while  it  has  added  but  little 
more  than  one-fifth  to  its  whole  Missionary  force.” — Letter  of  Pres.  Blan- 
:hard  and  others  to  the  Cincinnati  Convention,  April,  1850. 

l;  The  American  Home  Missionary  Society  has  fifty-six  churches  in  slave 
States,  all  open  to  the  reception  of  slaveholders.” — “ J.  B.fi  in  Chr.  Era , 
Oct.  2,  1851. 

And  how  is  it  with  the  Missionary  Societies  of  other  sects  ? 
vVe  answer  in  the  words  of  Pres.  Blanchard. 

14 


210 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


“The  American  Board  of  Commissioners  for  Foreign  Missions  and  the 
Home  Missionary  Society  certainly  contrast  favorably  with  the  correspond-  ' 
ing  agencies  in  their  sister  sects.  Their  records  show  at  least  enough 
hostility  to  slaveholding  mingling  with  their  councils,  to  keep  the  subject 
in  agitation  from  year  to  year.” — Tb. 

OTHER  AGENCIES. 

“ The  missionary  piety  of  a country  is  its  popular  piety.  Bible,  Tract, 
Sunday  School,  and  other  subordinate  operations,  walk  in  the  light  of  the 
missionary  enterprise,  and  are  merely  an  expansion  and  part  of  it.  We 
have  not  the  statistics  at  hand,  but  a table  showing  the  sum  annually  col- 
lected and  disbursed  in  this  country  for  religious  and  benevolent  uses,  under 
circumstances  which  imply  the  admission  of  slaveholding  to  the  com- 
munion table,  is  alone  sufficient  to  keep  up  the  evangelical  character  of 
slavery.  For  every  subscriber  who  pays,  and  every  agent  who  collects, 
and  every  person  who  receives  a shilling  of  the  conscience  fund  of  the 
United  States,  which  is  raised  by  that  religion  which  allows  slavery  to  its 
communion  table,  either  consciously  or  unconsciously  utters  a silent  con- 
fession of  his  faith,  that  slaveholding  is  privileged  in  the  Church  of  God.” 
—Ib. 

The  American  Bible  Society,  at  an  early  day,  aroused 
tlie  religious  community  with,  the  proposal  to  supply  every 
family  in  the  United  States  with  Bibles.  The  auxiliary  socie- 
ties, the  agents,  and  the  ministry  in  general,  for  a number  of 
years,  kept  the  enterprise  prominently  before  the  public ; large 
and  general  contributions  were  made  for  the  object;  the 
widow’s  mite  was  cast  into  the  treasury,  and,  at  length,  the 
report  went  forth,  re-published  by  the  presses  of  Christendom, 
that  the  magnificent  work  had  been  accomplished.  On  inves- 
tigation, some  time  afterwards,  it  appeared  that  there  had 
been  a slight  oversight  in  the  statement.  The  bulk  of  the 
labeling  population,  in  half  the  states  of  the  republic  had, 
somehow,  been  overlooked  in  the  distribution.  The  only  rea- 
sons nf  this  neglect  were,  that  they  were  of  a darker  complex- 
ion than  their  neighbors,  were  of  African  descent,  were  chiefly 
held  as  slaves,  and  for  these  causes  were  not  encouraged  or 
permitted  to  read.  The  number  of  the  families  left  destitute 
(regarding  every  five  persons  as  a family)  was  four  hundred 
and  sixty  thousand,  or,  a population  of  two  millions  three 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM.  211 

hundred  thousand,  comprising  a little  more  than  one-sixth  part 
of  the  population  of  the  whole  country. 

This  was  quite  an  important  destitution.  With  a view  to 
its  supply,  the  American  Anti-Slavery  Society,  in  May,  1834, 
(through  a committee  representing  several  religious  denomina- 
tions,) submitted  a written  proposal  to  the  American  Bible 
Society,  in  which  they  offered  to  contribute  to  the  funds  of 
the  society  five  thousand  dollars,  provided  the  society  would 
appropriate  the  same  amount  to  the  supply  of  the  destitute 
colored  population,  and  carry  the  measure  into  effect  in  two 
years  from  the  4th  of  July,  1834. 

The  offer  was  not  accepted  by  the  Bible  Society,  and  no 
mention  was  made  of  it  in  its  Annual  Beport.  Prominent 
members  and  supporters  of  the  institution  professed  to  regard 
the  offer  as  a rude  attack,  amounting  to  an  insult.  The  chief 
apologies  for  the  course  of  the  society  were,  (1)  that  the  laws 
of  the  slave  states  did  not  permit  the  slaves  to  read,  and  (2), 
that  the  work  of  distribution  belonged  to  the  auxiliaries,  and 
not  to  the  parent  society.  To  these  apologies  it  is  sufficient  to 
answer  that  in  its  foreign  operations  the  society  does  not  hold 
itself  circumscribed  by  the  legislation  that  interdicts  the  scrip- 
tures— nor  did  its  structure  nor  the  proper  province  of  its  aux- 
liaries  debar  the  parent  society  from  proposing  the  supply  of 
; very  family  in  the  United  States  with  Bibles.  It  would  have 
aeen  as  easy  for  it  to  have  proposed  the  completion  of  that  sup- 
oly,  and  undoubtedly  this  would  have  been  done,  if  there  had 
aeen  no  fear  of  offending  slaveholding  church  members. — See 
Emancipator , May  27,  and  June  24,  1834. 

An  agent  of  the  Bible  Society,  some  time  afterwards,  was 
letected  in  furnishing  a Bible  to  a colored  person  in  New  Or- 
eans.  He  was  arrested,  but  released  on  the  ground  of  his  not 
>eing  'acquainted  with  the  laws,  and  his  promising  not  to  re- 
peat the  offence.  The  Bible  Society  of  New  Orleans,  auxil- 
ary to  the  American  Bible  Society,  publicly  disclaimed  the 
ct,  and  protested  its  innocency  of  any  intent  to  furnish  the 
olored  people  with  Bibles.  The  “ Parent  Society"  is  not 


212 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


known  to  have  uttered  any  reproof  or  remonstrance  to  its 
“ auxiliary or  any  regret  at  tke  course  it  pursued. 

At  a meeting  of  the  Orleans  County  (N.  Y.)  Bible  Society, 
“ a Resolution  was  introduced,  that  the  society  request  the 
American  Bible  Society  to  make  a donation  of  Bibles  for  the 
fugitive  slaves  in  Canada  West.  This  was  opposed , and  finally 
lost."  No  laws  against  the  distribution  could  be  pleaded  in 
this  case.* — Oberlin  Evangelist , July  2,  1845.  Chr.  lnv. 
March,  1846. 

Whatever  of  progress,  or  appearance  of  progress,  has  been 
made  by  the  American  Bible  Society,  will  be  shown  by  the 
following. 

“ Public  attention,  says  the  Annual  Report  of  the  A.  and  F.  Anti-Slavery 
Society  (1849),  has  been  drawn,  more  than  at  any  previous  time,  towards 
the  obligation  of  circulating  the  Bible  among  the  slave  population.  The 
South  begins  to  feel  that  ‘ considerations  of  sound  policy,  as  well  as  Chris- 
tian obligation,’  require  attention  to  the  subject.  Some  Christians  in  that 
portion  of  the  country  realize  the  duty  of  supplying  slaves  with  the  Bible, 
and  are  doing  it  to  a limited  extent.  At  the  North,  unwonted  interest  has 
been  manifested  on  the  subject.  The  American  Bible  Society  has  been 
urged  to  take  up  the  matter.  In  their  monthly  ‘ Record,’  under  the  head 
of  ‘ Slaves,’  they  acknowledge  receipts  for  this  purpose  ; but  in  a circular 
issued  some  months  since,  they  say,  ‘ Local  distributions  should  be  made 
under  the  direction  of  the  auxiliaries.  On  these  organizations  at  the  South 
devolves  the  duty,  beyond  doubt,  of  supplying  the  slave  population  of  that 
region — so  far  as  this  work  is  to  be  done;'  and  they  request  that  contribu- 
tors to  the  income  of  the  Society  would  not  restrict  their  contributions  to 
this  object,  as  the  funds  must  remain  in  part  unexpended.  It  has  also  been 
stated  to  applicants,  at  the  Bible  House,  that  they  have  no  fund  for  slaves, 
that  they  do  not  intend  to  have,  and  rather  than  have,  they  would  prefer 
to  return  to  the  donors  money  sent  for  that  object.  At  the  same  time,  it  is 
but  just  to  say,  that  the  managers  of  the  American  Bible  Society  resolve 
that  they  will  promptly  avail  themselves  of  every  opportunity  to  further 
the  distribution  of  the  Bible  among  the  slave  population  at  the  South,  and 
that  copies  will  be  supplied  to  any  responsible  person  for  that  object.  The 
secretary  acknowledges  that  the  applications  of  the  Anti-Slavery  Society 
have  done  good,  and  the  managers  avow,  in  the  circular,  that  ‘ so  far  as 


* The  excuse  made  was,  that  the  measure  would  he  thought  to  savor  of  abolition- 
ism, would  hazard  the  peace  and  welfare  of  the  society,  and  therefore  it  should  bo 
left  to  individuals  to  make  the  request. 


SLAVERY  AX'D  FREEDOM. 


213 


there  are  colored  freemen,  or  slaves  within  the  limits  of  an  auxiliary,  who 
can  be  reached,  who  are  capable  of  reading  the  blessed  word  of  God,  and 
are  without  it,  they  should  unquestionably  be  furnished  w'ith  it,  as  well  as 
any  other  class  of  our  ruined  race.” — Liberty  Almanac  for  1849. 

The  American  Tract  Society  prepares,  publishes,  and 
circulates  tracts  against  every  sin  forbidden  in  the  decalogue, 
except  that  particular  form  of  sin  which  involves  the  violation 
of  the  entire  code — the  sin  of  subverting  the  family  relation, 
reducing  the  image  of  God  to  a chattel,  and  robbing  a man  of 
himself. 

The  charge  is  not  that  they  decline  circulating  the  writings 
of  “modern  fanatics,”  on  this  subject.  They  equally  avoid 
circulating  the  testimonies  of  Hopkins,  of  Edwards,  of  Wesley, 
of  Grotius,  of  Hannah  More,  of  John  Locke,  of  John  Jay,  of 
Dr.  Primatt,  of  Dr.  Price,  of  the  Abbe  Eaynal,  of  the  Abbe 
Gregoire,  of  James  Beattie,  of  Dr.  Adam  Clarke,  of  Arch 
Deacon  Paley,  of  Edmund  Burke,  of  Dr.  Johnson,  of  Bishop 
Horsley,  of  Bishop  Porteus,  of  Dr.  Robertson,  of  Bishop  War- 
berton,  of  Thomas  Scott,  of  Granville  Sharp,  of  Thomas 
Clarkson,  of  Fowell  Buxton,  of  Dr.  Dick,  of  John  Angell 
James — of  the  Christian  poets,  Cowper,  Pollok,  and  Mont- 
gomery. The  volumes  of  general  Christian  literature  since 
the  beginning  of  the  African  slave  trade,  furnish,  it  would 
seem,  no  suitable  materials  from  which  the  Committee  of  the 
American  Tract  Society,  with  all  their  tact  and  skill  in  the  art 
of  pruning,  could  cull  an  eight  page  tract  against  human  chat- 
telhood,  against  slaveholding,  against  the  slave  system,  or 
even  in  relation  to  those  topics. 

More  marvellous,  still : — In  all  the  ranks  of  the  learned,  the 
wise,  the  good,  the  discreet,  of  our  own  age  and  nation,  who 
cherish  the  American  Tract  Society  as  an  instrumentality  for 
teaching  human  relations  and  duties,  for  admonishing  an  err- 
ing world  of  its  sins;  among  all  the  writers  on  whom  the 
Tract  Committee  depend,  and  to  whom  they  look  for  tracts 
adapted  to  the  times  we  live  in,  not  one , it  seems,  has  been  pre- 
vailed upon  or  has  succeeded,  in  furnishing  a page  of  instruc- 
tion upon  a subject  in  respect  to  which — it  is  said — imprudent 


214 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


and  rash  writers  are  leading  Christians  astray  ! What  a won-- 
derful  condition  of  things  is  this?  What  sorcery  has  para- 
lyzed this  arm  of  the  Church — the  arm  that  should  wield  the 
Christian  press,  amid  the  influences  that  corrupt  and  destroy? 

But  this  is  not  the  worst  of  the  case.  The  Society  is  not 
merely  guilty  of  neglect.  It  commits  a positive  injury.  By 
its  mutilation  of  books  it  compels  the  common  Christian  lit- 
erature of  the  English  language  to  bear  false  witness.  By  its 
garbled  biographies  of  the  sainted  dead,  by  its  suppression  of 
their  earnest  testimony  againt  slavery,  by  its  smothering  the 
expression  of  the  purest  Christian  affections  of  their  hearts, 
it  hides  the  distinctive  traits  of  their  Christian  character,  and 
falsely  holds  them  up  as  specimens  of  the  kind  of  piety  that 
expresses  no  abhorrence  of  slaveholding.  It  is  a perversion 
of  truth.  It  is  a deceitful  representation  of  the  character  de- 
scribed : 

“ A case  has  recently  appeared  ; the  memoir  of  Mary  Lundie  Duncan,  of 
Scotland,  by  her  mother.  It  first  had  a wide  circulation  abroad  ; then  was 
published  in  this  country,  in  full,  by  the  Carters,  in  various  styles,  and  some 
of  them  as  cheap  as  could  be  desired  ; but  now  has  been  published,  abridged, 
by  the  American  Tract  Society.  It  is,  however,  abridged  very  slightly, 
its  size  being  scarcely  at  all  lessened,  but  some  important  omissions  are 
made. 

“According  to  th  e Independent  (for  January  22),  the  following  is  omitted 
on  page  79 : 

“ ‘ We  have  been  lately  much  interested  in  the  emancipation  of  slaves : 

I never  heard  eloquence  more  overpowering  than  that  of  George  Thompson. 

I am  most  thankful  that  he  has  been  raised  up.  O that  the  measure  soon 
to  be  proposed  in  Parliament  may  be  effectual !’ 

“ In  the  following  paragraph,  the  sentences  in  brackets  are  expunged  in 
the  Tract  Society’s  edition  : 

“ ‘ August  1.  Freedom  has  dawned  this  morning  upon  the  British  colonies. 
[No  more  degraded  lower  than  the  brutes — no  more  bowed  down  with 
suffering  from  which  there  is  no  redress.]  The  sons  of  Africa  have  ob- 
tained the  rights  of  fellow-subjects,  the  rights  of  man,  the  immortal  creation 
of  God.  [Now  they  may  seek  the  sanctuary,  fearless  of  the  lash  ; they 
may  call  their  children  their  own.]  Hope  will  animate  their  hearts,  and 
give  vigor  to  their  efforts.’ 

“ Such  mutilations  have  their  object.  We  are  sorry  to  see  in  them  an 
unworthy  subserviency  to  the  foul  behests  of  slavery.” — Oberlin  Evangelist, 
1852. 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


215 


Such  is  a specimen  of  the  methods  of  those  who  superin- 
tend our  religious  literature,  and  who  cannot  approve  “ the 
measures”  of  abolitionists. 

The  American  Sunday  School  Union  is  prompt  to  ex- 
purgate from  her  Sunday  School  libraries  whatever  may  have 
incidentally  crept  into  them,  in  familiar  abstracts  of  Scripture 
history,  which  might  be  construed  into  a disapproval  of  Ameri- 
can slavery,  though  the  books  may  not  have  been  written  for 
that  end,  nor  by  writers  at  all  identified  with  present  efforts 
for  the  abolition  of  slavery.* 

CONCLUDING  REMARKS. 

We  must  not  pursue,  further,  the  specific  action  of  the 
American  churches,  and  the  organizations  that  have  grown 
out  of  them.  Apart  from  what  has  been  presented  already, 
and  much  more  of  the  same  character,  which  it  would  be 
easy  to  add,  there  is  one  general  fact,  the  consideration  of 
which  might  suffice,  of  itself,  to  determine  the  question  of 
their  relation  to  slavery.  The  Northern  churches  commonly 
foster  the  spirit  of  caste  by  repudiating  social  equality  with 
the  colored  man,  and  by  maintaining  the  negro  pew.  This 
fact  has  been  adverted  to  by  legislators  in  the  free  states, 
(once  in  a Report  by  a Legislative  Committee  of  the  State  of 
New  York)  as  furnishing  the  reason  why  it  is  impossible  for 
the  State  Governments  to  restore  to  the  colored  citizens  their 
acknowledged  political  and  civil  rights.  So  long  as  this  un- 
righteous prejudice  is  indulged  by  the  churches,  it  must  bind 
them  to  the  car  of  the  slave-power  as  its  voluntary  victims 
and  tools.  It  must  seal  their  lips  from  the  utterance  of  God’s 
words  of  rebuke.  While  such  diseases  prey  upon  the  vitals 
of  the  Church,  while  she  “refuses  to  be  healed,  and  knows  not 


* The  late  Mr.  Gallaudet,  who  was  never  identified  with  active  abolitionists, 
revised  an  English  hook  for  the  American  Sunday  School  Union,  called  “ Jacob  and 
his  Sons,”  in  three  small  volumes,  which,  after  being  circulated  awhile,  was  dropped 
by  the  committee,  because,  in  its  biography  of  Joseph,  it  contained  a passage 
alluding  to  slavery,  which  gave  offence  to  the  South. 


216 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


that  her  strength  has  departed,”  in  vain  shall  her  prophets  cry 
“ Peace ! peace  !”  or  her  physicians  prescribe  panaceas  for  her 
wounds. 

In  the  preceding  records,  we  have  aimed  not  only  to  guard 
against  the  injustice  of  indiscriminate  censure,  but  have  en- 
deavored, as  far  as  practicable,  to  separate  the  topic  of  this 
chapter  (the  position  of  the  Churches  in  respect  to  slavery) 
from  their  relation  to  “ modern  abolitionists  ” and  their  peculiar 
and  distinctive  ‘'’measures.'1'1  That  topic  we  propose  to  take 
up  in  another  chapter.  We  have  not  obtruded  it  here.  We 
have  not  written  them  down  “ pro-slavery  ” because  they 
“followed  not  with  us” — nor  because  we  have  been  earnestly 
opposed  by  them.  They  claim  to  be  “as  much  opposed  to 
slavery  as  the  abolitionists  themselves.”  The  impartial  reader 
will  now  judge  for  himself  of  that  claim.  He  has  seen  what 
they  have  done  and  said  on  the  subject,  and  what  they  have 
declined  saying  and  doing ; and  he  has  seen  this,  by  itself, 
disconnected  with  any  controversies  concerning  “ modern  abo- 
litionists and  their  measures.”  Whatever  may  be  said  of 
them,  the  single  point  presented  in  this  chapter  is  the  relation 
of  the  American  Churches,  as  organized  bodies,  to  the  prac- 
tice of  slaveholding.  On  that  point  alone,  let  the  reader  now 
make  up  his  opinion. 

And  when  he  has  done  this,  let  him  next  inquire  whether 
it  is  probable  that  the. Churches,  other  ecclesiastical  bodies, 
and  leading  ministers,  of  the  different  sects  in  this  country, 
could  hold  such  a position  in  respect  to  slaveholding,  church 
discipline,  religious  instruction,  and  the  missionary  enterprise, 
without  being  brought,  of  necessity,  into  a state  of  hostility 
to  any  body  of  earnest,  persevering,  and.  consistent  men  and 
Christians,  who  should  seek,  from  high  moral,  religious  and 
benevolent  considerations,  the  present  and  entire  abolition  of 
slavery. 

He  will  do  well  to  inquire  also  whether  any  ordinary  or 
even  possible  manifestations  of  wisdom  and  circumspection, 
on  the  part  of  such  a body  of  men,  would  be  likely  to  pre- 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


217 


vent,  or  could  prevent,  their  collision  with  religionists  holding 
such  a position  respecting  slavery  and  slaveholding.  And 
when  he  comes  to  examine  the  facts  reserved  for  another 
chapter  of  this  history,  he  will  be  able,  perhaps,  to  make  up 
his  mind,  intelligently  and  conclusively,  on  the  whole  subject. 

The  verdict  of  an  impartial  posterity  can  easily  be  foreseen. 
Already  that  verdict  is  beginning  to  be  anticipated  by  men  of 
calm  minds,  who  have  stood  aloof,  as  lookers-on,  during  the 
whole  struggle,  or  until  quite  recently,  and  who  are  far  enough, 
even  now,  from  adventuring  to  co-operate  with  any  class  of 
active  abolitionists,  or  severing  their  ecclesiastical  connections. 

“Let  the  time  come,”  says  Albert  Barnes,  “when,  in  all  the  mighty 
denominations  of  Christians,  it  can  be  announced  that  the  evil  is  ceased 
with  them  forever ; and  let  the  voice  of  each  denomination  be  lifted  up  in 
kind,  but  firm  and  solemn  testimony  against  the  system — with  no  mealy 
words,  with  no  attempt  at  apology,  with  no  wish  to  blink  it,  with  no  effort 
to  throw  the  sacred  shield  of  religion  over  so  great  an  evil — and  the  work 
is  done.  There  is  no  public  sentiment  in  this  land — there  could  be  none 
created — that  would  resist  the  power  of  such  testimony.  There  is  no 
power  out  of  the  church  that  could  sustain  slavery  an  hour,  if  it  were  not 
sustained  in  it.” 

How  idle  then,  is  it,  for  churches  and  ministers  to  think  of 
shielding  themselves  from  censure,  by  dwelling  on  the  real  or 
supposed  faults  of  abolitionists ! Why  have  they  not  accom- 
plished the  work  themselves?  Why,  at  the  least,  are  they 
not  now  attempting  it  ? 

Their  real  position  is  revealed  clearly  by  the  continual  re- 
currence of  a class  of  significant  incidents,  too  numerous  and 
too  scattered  for  convenient  classification  and  record.  We 
present  here  a few  specimens  : 

At  the  Religious  Anniversaries  in  New  York  in  May,  at  an 
early  period,  some  time  between  1832  and  1835  inclusive, 
(we  have  not  the  precise  date)  a number  of  ministers  and 
others  from  the  country,  in  attending  the  early  morning 
prayer  meetings,  before  the  public  exercises,  were  heard  to 
pray  for  the  poor  slaves — some  of  them,  perhaps,  for  the  abo- 
lition of  slavery.  Among  these  was  the  venerable  Rev. 
Ethan  Smith,  the  writer  on  the  prophecies.  The  incident, 


218 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


without  mention  of  names,  was  conspicuously  heralded  in  the 
New  York  Observer  and  kindred  prints,  in  illustration  of  tin 
meddlesome  and  mischievous  expedients  of  abolitionists  tc 
disturb  the  harmony  of  the  anniversaries,  and  mar  the  peac< 
of  the  Church. 

Similar  complaints  of  anti-slavery  prayers  have  been  com 
mon  all  over  the  country,  and  have  not  yet  ceased  ; and  quite 
recently,  Dr.  Spring  has  said, — “If,  by  one  prayer  I coulc 
liberate  every  slave  in  the  land,  I would  not  dare  to  offer  it.’ 
This  might  deserve  the  commendation  of  honest  frankness,  if 
the  same  class  of  persons  would  not  claim  (especially  on  visit- 
ing England)  to  desire  the  abolition  of  slavery,  as  much  as 
anybody,  and  complain  that  “ the  imprudence  of  abolitionists 
had  put  back  the  event  half  a century.”  • 

When  news  of  the  British  Act  of  Emancipation  reached 
America,  there  was  a general  prediction  of  bloodshed,  and 
American  abolitionists  were  implicated  with  those  of  England, 
in  the  responsibility  and  the  guilt.  The  religious  presses 
were  forward  in  this.  After  the  first  panic  was  over,  they 
spoke  of  it  as  “an  experiment.”  The  New  York  Observer, 
yielding  to  public  sympathy,  went  so  far  as  to  say  that  if  all 
went  on  peacefully,  the  abolition  controversy  in  America  would 
be  at  an  end,  as  there  could  be  but  one  sentiment  among 
Christians.  And  there  could  not  be,  aside  from  the  influences 
represented  by  such  papers  as  the  New  York  Observer.  Well ; 
the  testimony  of  the  West  India  authorities  and  of  Queen 
Victoria  to  the  peacefulness  and  benefits  of  emancipation  at 
length  reached  us.  Edward  Everett  (who,  as  Governor  of 
Massachusetts,  had  been  forward  to  intimate  that  abolitionists 
should  be  “indicted  at  Common  Law,”)  was  now  ready,  in  a 
published  letter,  to  recognize  the  glorious  event.  But  the 
co-operation  of  the  leading  churches,  ministry,  and  religious 
presses,  has  not  been  secured  to  the  cause  of  freedom.  Their 
opposition  has  scarcely  been  relaxed.  With  some  it  is  more 
bitter  than  ever.  The  benefits  of  West  India  emancipation 
must  be  learned  through  other  channels  than  those  directed 
by  them. 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


219 


The  “imprudence”  of  the  immediatists  was  magnified.  Some 
plan  of  “gradualism”  was  preferred.  When  John  Quincy 
Adams,  after  great  deliberation  and  labor,  prepared  and  pre- 
sented in  Congress  his  plan  for  gradual  abolition,  he  doubtless 
expected  the  ready  co-operation  of  the  religious  portion  of 
the  community  not  committed  to  the  immediatists.  But  he 
met  with,  literally,  nothing  of  the  kind,  that  reached  the  pub- 
lic ear.  Not  a sermon,  not  a clerical  letter,  not  an  ecclesiastical 
resolution,  not  a paragraph  of  a religious  editor,  not  a corres- 
pondent of  a religious  periodical,  so  far  as  we  could  ever  learn, 
commended  the  measure.  Political  editors  were  equally  silent. 
The  proposition  fell  like  a weight  of  lead  to  the  ground.  This 
one  fact  (almost  forgotten  already)  decides  the  position  of  the 
leading  churches  and  ministry  of  the  North  on  the  slave 
question. 


220 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


CHAPTER  XIX. 

ACTION  OF  THE  FEDERAL  GOVERNMENT,  TO  THE  CLOSE  OF 
THE  FIRST  PRESIDENTIAL  ADMINISTRATION. 

Preliminary  observations — Secrecy  of  the  Convention  of  1787 — Names  and  dates  of 
the  different  Presidents — Federal  action  under  the  first  President — Action  in  Con- 
gress on  the  Anti-Slavery  petitions — Acceptance  of  Slave  territory  (now  Ten 
nessee),  ceded,  under  restrictions,  by  North  Carolina — Cession  of  the  Federal 
District — Congressional  re-enactment  of  Slavery — The  act  unconstitutional — Fugi- 
tive Slave  Bill  of  1793 — Examination  of  it — Unconstitutional  provisions— Escape 
of  a female  slave  of  the  President — Slavery  in  the  Federal  District — Naturalization 
Law,  1790,  for  “ white  persons” — Act  of  1792  for  organizing  a “ white”  militia — 
Admission  of  Tennessee  as  a Slave  State,  1796— Kentucky  previously'. 

From  the  Church,  we  now  turn  again  to  the  State.  Having  i 
seen  the  position  of  the  former,  we  need  not  he  surprised  by  i 
any  similar  manifestations  in  the  latter.  When  the  salt  loses  I 
its  savor,  we  may  expect  to  meet  with  putrefaction  in  the 
masses  around  it.  The  political  morality  of  a nation  may 
sometimes  fall  below  the  level  of  its  current  religion,  but 
never  rises  above  it.  When  the  leading  religious  teachers  of 
a country  maintain  that  sins  “ interwoven  by  legislation  into 
the  structure  and  frame-work  of  society,”  may  therefore  find  a 
q^uiet  home  in  the  Church,  there  can  be  no  effectual  security 
against  unrighteous  enactments.  A high  premium — so  to 
speak — is  thus  bid,  before  hand,  for  wicked  laws.*  When 
such  teachers  denounce  the  doctrine  that  iniquitous  enactments 
are,  before  God,  null  and  void,  and  that  the  laws  of  God  are 


* The  Fugitive  Slave  Bill  was  enacted  in  1850.  The  doctrine  that  “ organic”  or 
national  sins  must  not  be  excluded  from  the  Church,  was  promulgated  at  the  meet- 
ing of  the  American  Board,  in  Brooklyn,  in  1845. 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


221 


of  higher  authority  than  the  edicts  of  man,  the  defences  of 
liberty  as  well  as  the  foundations  of  morality  will  be  likely  to 
give  way,  and  the  land  be  inundated  with  despotism  and 
crime.  So  long  as  moral  causes  continue  to  produce  their 
appropriate  effects,  it  must  remain  true  that  a people  consent- 
ing to  come  under  the  influence  of  such  teachers,  must  be 
exposed  to  the  loss  of  their  liberties.  And  while  a God  of 
equity  controls  human  affairs,  a people  that  voluntarily 
sustain  such  enactments  must  fall  under  his  displeasure. 

It  must  be  a short-sighted  ambition,  whether  in  ecclesiastics 
or  statesmen,  that  overlooks,  in  its  estimates,  the  sure  verdict 
of  eorning  years,  and  purchases  the  popularity  of  an  hour  at 
the  price  of  a perpetual  future  infamy.  They  should  know 
that  no  arts  of  cunning  can  cover  them  from  the  scrutiny  of 
posterity,  and  no  power  of  patronage  protect  tkem  from  the 
reproving  pages  of  history.  And  in  this  anticipation  they 
should  read  the  presage  of  the  still  surer  sentence  of  their 
Supreme  Judge,  in  the  world  to  come. 

Wicked  rulers  may  be  canonized  by  false  teachers,  and,  for 
a season,  be  reverenced  for  saints,  as  well  as  lauded  for  states- 
men. But  Time,  (to  say  nothing  of  Eternity)  will  tear  off  the 
mask,  and  their  names  will  stand  for  the  representatives  of 
falsehood  and  folly. 

In  the  State,  as  in'  the  Church,  the  downward  course  of 
declension  is  often  silent,  stealthy,  and  for  a time,  unperceived, 
but  without  repentance  and  amendment,  apostacy  and  ruin 
must  be  the  final  result. 

Sustained  by  such  sentiments,  and  commending  them  to  the 
reader,  we  now  approach  the  inner  sanctuary  of  our  political 
temple,  (the  temple,  perhaps,  of  our  nation’s  idolatry,)  into 
which  it  has  been  thought  sacrilege  to  gaze.  The  reverence 
with  which  we  have  been  accustomed  to  regard  the  doings  of 
our  half-deified  statesmen,  may  now  be  sadly  disturbed.  But 
the  scrutiny  must  proceed ; and  though  the  Hebrew  prophets’ 
11  chambers  of  imagery”  should  be  revealed,  we  must  brace 
wide  open  the  doors.  If  the  sight  reduces  our  reverence  of 
men,  it  may  increase  our  veneration  of  God. 


222 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


SECRECY  OF  THE  FEDERAL  CONVENTION  OF  1787. 

One  of  the  most  important  facts  in  our  national  history,  so 
far  as  the  connection  of  the  Federal  Government  with  slavery 
is  concerned,  bears  the  same  date  with  the  sittings  of  the 
Convention  of  Delegates,  in  1787,  by  whom  the  draft  of  our 
Federal  Constitution  was  prepared ; and  it  stands  connected 
with  the  circumstances  and  manner  of  their  procedure.  It  is 
the  fact  that  that  most  important  Convention,  (a  knowledge  of 
whose  discussions  was  of  deeper  interest  to  the  people,  than 
the  knowledge  of  any  other  discussions  ever  held  in  the 
country,)  sat  constantly  with  dosed  doors,  and  under  an  injunction 
of  secrecy , the  veil  remaining  unlifted,  till  the  generation 
whose  responsibilities  required  a knowledge  of  those  delibera- 
tions, had  not  only  acted,  but  had  passed  off  the  stage. 

It  is  in  no  spirit  of  censoriousness  that  we  allude  to  this 
important  historical  fact.  We  neither  say  nor  believe  that  the 
arrangement  was  adopted  for  unworthy  ends.  Assuredly  this 
was  not  the  purpose  of  the  noble  friends  of  universal  liberty 
who  were  members  of  that  body.  The  arrangement  may 
nevertheless  be  regarded  a most  important  historical  fact,  and 
one  upon  which  the  entire  political  history  of  the  country,  as 
connected  with  slavery,  has  ever  since  hinged.  It  may  also 
be  regarded  as  a most  calamitous  fact,  and  one  for  the 
existence  of  which,  there  seems  to  have  been  no  adequate 
cause.  The  Convention  was  not  a military  council,  delibe- 
rating upon*  measures  that  might  have  been  reported  in  the 
camp  of  an  enemy.  It  was  a political  body, .sitting  in  time  of 
peace,  and  among  constituents  who  were  entitled  to  know  how 
and  why  they  were  acting.  It  is  natural  to  suppose  that  the 
policy  of  secrecy  resulted  from  habits  and  maxims  imbibed 
under  a kingly  dynasty.  This  apology  may  excuse  the 
delegates,  but  it  could  not  do  away  the  effects  of  their  arrange- 
ment. It  wras  anti-democratic  in  its  character,  and  could  not 
but  produce  corresponding  results.  It  is  important  that  the 
friends  of  freedom  observe  this,  and  derive  from  it  a maxim 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM.- 


228 


for  future  guidance : ‘ The  slightest  departure  from  democracy 
endangers  freedom 

Had  the  Convention  sat  with  open  doors,  with  their  delib- 
erations gazetted  daily,  as  in  Congress,  there  is  no  room  to 
believe  that  the  slave  question  in  America  could  ever  have 
stood  where  it  now  stands..  What  is  now  shrouded  in  mys- 
tery would  have  been  held  up  in  the  light  of  the  suu.  Had 
the  people  of  that  generation  found  in  those  proceedings,  the 
“ compromises  ” and  “ understandings  ” now  claimed  for 
slavery,  the  draft  reported  would  never  have  been  “ the  Con- 
stitution.” No  draft,  in  connection  with  such  “understand- 
ings,” would  ever  have  been  reported.  The  reader  of  the 
preceding  history  will  judge  of  this,  for  himself.*  But  if  (as 
we  believe)  there  were  no  such  “ understandings”  and  “ com- 
promises,” other  than  those  found  in  the  draft,  the  gazetted 
discussions  would  have  disclosed  none,  and  no  pretensions  of 
them  could  have  been  afterwards  set  up.  In  either  case,  the 
open  Convention  would  have  given  us  a free  country,  in- 
stead of  a conquered  territory  of  the  Slave-Power,  ruled  by  a 
petty  oligarchy  of  slaveholders. 

It  is  easy  to  see  how  the  arrangement  of  secrecy  gave  rise 
:o  the  pretensions  of  the  Slave  Power,  in  the  first  place,  and 
lias  favored  it  ever  since.  It  could  not  fail  to  favor  the  arts 
)f  any  in  the  Convention  (if  there  were  such)  who  might 
choose  to  make  use  of  the  Constitution  for  purposes  of  evil, 
}f  which  the  people,  whose  instrument  and  act  it  was,  never 
lreamed.  It  opened  the  door  for  conjecture,  for  insinuation, 
or  assumption,  for  the  monopoly  of  occult  interpretation,  for 
he  claim  of  unexpressed  “ understandings,  compromises  and 
guaranties.”  It  afforded  opportunity  to  give  direction  to 
echnical  ambiguity  and  circumlocution,  in  the  document 
tself.  It  enabled  Cabinets,  Legislatures,  and  Courts  of  Law, 
f they  pleased,  to  foist,  unperceived,  a Constitution  of 
heir  own  devising,  in  the  place  of  the  Constitution  submitted 
o the  people.  The  people,  in  such  a case,  can  have  no  secu- 


* See  Chapters  VIII.  and  IX. 


224 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


rity  from  the  most  monstrous  perversions  of  the  Constitution, 
but  by  insisting  upon  a rigorous  adherence  to  that  righteous' 
rule  of  legal  interpretation,  based  upon  the  Common  Law, 
that  imperatively  forbids  any  construction  to  be  put  upon  any 
instrument  which  shall  make  it  conflict  with  equity  and 
justice,  so  long  as  the  language  employed  will  possibly  ad- 
mit of  a construction  which  would  make  it  equitable.  What 
a revolution  would  an  adherence  to  that  righteous  rule  pro- 
duce ! 

The  following  Table  will  be  useful  for  reference,  as  we 
proceed : 


George  Washington 

was 

President  from 

1789  to 

1797. 

John  Adams 

44 

44 

44 

1797  to 

1801. 

Thomas  Jefferson 

44 

(4 

44 

1801  to 

1809. 

James  Madison 

u 

44 

U 

1809  to 

1817. 

James  Monroe 

u 

44 

44 

1817  to 

1825. 

John  Quincy  Adams 

u 

44 

44 

1825  to 

1829. 

Andrew  Jackson 

u 

44 

44 

1829  to 

1837. 

Martin  Van  Buren 

u 

44 

44 

1837  to 

1841. 

William  H.  Harrison. 
John  Tyler 

, and 

i “ 

U 

1841  to 

1845. 

James  K.  Polk 

44 

44 

44 

1845  to 

1849. 

Zachary  Taylor 

u 

U 

1849  to  July  9, 

1850. 

Millard  Fillmore 

44 

44 

(July  9)  1850  to 

Slaveholding  Presidents,  about  49  years — Non-Slavehold- 
ing, about  14  years,  up  to  4th  of  March,  1852.* 

FEDERAL  ACTION  UNDER  THE  FIRST  PRESIDENT. 

The  anti-slavery  petitions  of  1790,  before  mentioned,! 
though  they  evidently  found  favor  with  the  majority  of  the 
members  of  Congress,  nevertheless  failed  of  securing  their 
object.  A somewhat  favorable  Eeport  was  made  by  the 


* Washington  was  inaugurated  April  30th ; his  successors  (except  Tyler  and 
Fillmore),  March  4th.  Harrison  survived  his  inauguration  but  one  month,  Taylor 
one  year  and  above  four  months, 
t Chapter  X. 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


225 


Committee  to  whom  they  were  referred,  in  which  the  confi- 
dence was  expressed  that  the  State  Legislatures  would  revise 
their  laws,  from  time  to  time,  when  necessary,  and  promote 
the  objects  mentioned  in  the  memorials , and  every  other  measure 
that  may  tend  to  the  happiness  of  slaves  ” — also  assuring  the 
memorialists  that  “ in  all  cases  to  which  the  authority  of  Con- 
gress extends,  they  will  exert  it  for  the  humane  objects  of 
the  memorialists,  so  far  as  they  can  be  promoted  on  the  prin- 
ciples of  justice,  humanity,  and  good  policy.’’ — 2 Deb.  Cong. 
Old  Ser.  1465,  as  quoted  by  S.  P.  Chase,  U.  S.  Senate,  March 
26,  1850. 

In  deference  to  the  members  from  South  Carolina  and 
Georgia,  this  Report  was  frittered  away  till  it  embraced  only 
these  points,  viz  : that  Congress  could  not  interfere  with  sla- 
very in  the  States,  nor  prohibit  the  importation  of  slaves  till 
1808,  but  could  prohibit  American  citizens  from  importing 
slaves  for  the  supply  of  foreigners,  and  provide  for  the  humane 
treatment,  on  their  passage,  of  slaves  imported  here.  Thus 
was  taken  the  first  step  in  the  policy  of  evasion  and  compro- 
mise, in  the  Congress  of  the  United  States,  from  which  has 
followed  its  downward  course  ever  since.  Vide  Speech  of  S.  P. 
Chase,  as  above. 

In  the  same  year  (1790)  North  Carolina  tendered  to  the 
United  States  a cession  of  territory  including  the  present 
State  of  Tennessee,  on  condition  that  the  provisions  of  the 
Ordinance  of  1787,  for  the  North  Western  territory,  prohibit- 
ing slavery,  should  not  be  extended  over  that  region.  The 
cession  was  accepted  on  these  terms.  Thus  the  policy  of  the 
country,  on  that  subject,  was  reversed,  and  Congress  ivas  led,, 
for  the  first  time , to  give  its  direct  sanction  to  slavery. — (lb.) 

By  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  Congress  was  empowered  “to 
exercise  exclusive  legislation  in  all  cases  whatsoever,  over  such  district 
(not  exceeding  ten  miles  square)  as  may,  by  cession  of  particular  States, 
and  the  acceptance  of  Congress,  become  the  seat  of  Government  of  the 
United  States.” — Art.  I.,  sec.  3. 

On  the  22d  of  December,  1788,  Maryland  made  an  act  of 
cession  for  this  purpose.  On  the  3d  of  December,  1789,  Yir- 

15 


226 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


ginia  made  a similar  act  of  cession,  and  the  two  parcels  fixed 
upon  by  Congress,  in  accordance  with  these  acts,  comprised 
the  District  of  Columbia,  ten  miles  square.*  And  on  the  16th 
of  July,  1790,  Congress  passed  an  act,  accepting  these  cessions, 
and  providing  that  the  laws  of  the  two  States  over  their  re- 
spective portions  of  the  District  should  remain  in  force  “ until 
the  time  fixed  for  the  removal  of  the  Government  thereto, 
and  until  Congress  shall  otherwise  by  law  provide.” 

By  this  wholesale  and  summary  though  covert  process,  the 
Federal  Government  re-enacted  over  the  Federal  District 
those  slave  laws  which,  had  they  not  been  thus  re-enacted, 
would  have  become  inoperative  at  the  very  moment  the  ces- 
sion was  accepted,  upon  the  admitted  maxim  that  slavery  can 
exist  only  by  force  of  positive  municipal  or  local  law.  Yet 
Congress  had  no  more  power  or  authority,  under  the  Consti- 
tution, to  make  a slave,  than  it  had  to  establish  an  order  of 
nobility,  or  create  a king.  The  procedure  was  a flagrant 
usurpation  of  power,  a violation  of  the  Federal  Constitution, 
and  the  act,  so  far  as  the  existence  of  slavery  in  the  Fed- 
eral District  is  concerned,  should  be  set  aside  by  the  Courts 
of  the  United  States,  as  unconstitutional,  null,  and  void. 

This  point  is  of  too  much  importance  to  be  lightly  passed 
over.  We  will  fortify  our  position  by  introducing  a brief 
outline  of  an  argument  in  the  Speech  of  Hon.  Horace  Mann, 
of  Massachusetts,  in  the  House  of  Representatives  of  the  Uni- 
ted States,  February  23,  1849.  Ho  answer  to  the  argument 
is  known  to  have  been  attempted. 

We  quote  only  the  propositions  of  Mr.  Mann,  without  the 
luminous  illustrations  and  ample  authorities  by  which  he  elu- 
cidated and  sustained  them.  But  the  propositions  shine  with 
sufficient  clearness,  in  their  own  light. 

“ 1.  Slavery  has  no  legal  existence  unless  by  force  of  positive  law.” 

“ 2.  A man’s  legal  condition  may  be  changed  by  a change  in  the  govern- 
ment over  him,  while  he  remains  in  the  same  place,  just  as  effectually  as  it 


* The  portion  west  of  the  Potomac,  ceded  by  Virginia,  has  recently  been  retro 
ceded  back  again. 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM.  227 

can  be  changed  by  his  removal  to  another  place,  and  putting  himself  under 
another  government.” 

3.  “ The  jurisdiction  under  which  the  inhabitants  of  what  is  now  the  Dis- 
trict of  Columbia  lived,  prior  to  the  cession  of  the  District  by  Maryland  to 
the  United  States,  was  utterly  and  totally  changed  at  the  moment  of  the 
cession — at  the  moment  when,  according  to  the  provisions  of  the  Constitu- 
tion, they  ceased  to  be  citizens  of  the  State  of  Maryland,  and  became  citi- 
zens of  the  District  of  Columbia.” 

4.  “ Congress,  in  attempting  to  re-enact  the  Maryland  laws,  to  uphold 
slavery  in  this  District,  transcended  the  limits  of  its  constitutional  pow>er. 
It  acted  unconstitutionally.  It  acted  in  plain  contravention  of  some  of  the 
plainest  and  most  obvious  principles  consecrated  by  the  Constitution.  If 
so,  no  one  will  dispute  that  its  act  is  void.  I do  not. deny,  then,  that  Con- 
gress used  words  of  sufficient  amplitude  to  cover  slavery ; but  what  I deny 
is,  that  it  had  any  power  to  give  legal  force  to  those  words.” 

5.  “ My  next  proposition  therefore,  is  this : that  as  Congress  can  do 
nothing  except  what  it  is  empowered  to  do  by  the  Constitution,  and  as  the 
Constitution  does  not  empower  it  to  establish  slavery  here,  it  cannot  estab- 
lish slavery  here,  nor  continue  it.” 

The  ease  is  plain.  There  only  needs  a Granville  Sharp  to 
press  the  question  before  the  Federal  Courts.  Its  Blackstones 
and  Mansfields,  though  steeped  in  prejudice,  and  fettered  by 
precedent,  as  their  English  predecessors  were,  would  be  forced 
to  yield,  and  the  charm  of  judicial  infallibility  would  be 
broken.. 

Kentucky,  which  had  been  under  the  jurisdiction  of  Vir- 
ginia, was  admitted  into  the  Union  in  1792,  as  an  independent 
State.  This  commenced  the  policy  of  admitting  new  slave 
States. 

We  come  next  to  the  law  of  1793,  under  cover  of  which 
the  Federal  authorities  assist  in  returning  fugitive  slaves  to 
their  masters. 

The  Constitution  of  the  United  States  contains  the  follow- 
ing provision : 

“ No  person  held  to  service  or  labor  in  one  State,  under  the  laws  thereof, 
escaping  to  another,  shall,  in  consequence  of  any  law  or  regulation  therein, 
be  discharged  from  such  service  or  labor,  but  shall  be  delivered  up  on 
claim  of  the  party  to  whom  such  service  or  labor  may  be  due.” — Art.  IV., 
Sect.  2. 

From  the  mere  language  of  this  section,  no  one  would  sus- 


228 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


pect  that  it  referred  to  slaves.  It  makes  no  mention  of  such 
a class,  but  very  accurately  describes  the  case  of  apprentices 
and  other  persons  who  were  under  a voluntary  contract  to 
perform  labor,  having  received  an  equivalent  in  advance,  and 
being  in  debt  for  the  same.  Strictly  construed,  it  could  not 
apply  to  slaves. 

It  speaks  of  persons:  but  according  to  the  “ laws ” of  the 
slave  States,  a slave  is  not  a “ person,”  but  a chattel.  It 
speaks  of  persons  “ held  to  service  or  labor,”  but  slave  law 
holds  no  one  to  “ service  or  labor”*  any  more  than  it  does  to 
a life  of  prostitution  and  idleness.  It  only  holds  its  victim 
as  property — and  of  reclaiming  property  the  section  under 
review  says  nothing.  The  clause  provides  that  no  “ law  or 
regulation”  of  any  State  shall  “ discharge”  the  party  owing 
service.  It  does  not  say  that  either  the  State  into  which  he 
has  escaped,  or  that  the  United  States  shall  enforce  the  claim, 
or  help  carry  him  back.  Ho  “ service  or  labor”  can  be  due 
from  a chattel  to  its  proprietor.  The  slave  can  owe  no  debt, 
because  he  “ can  form  no  contract.”  And  were  it  otherwise, 
and  if  the  State  to  which  he  had  escaped,  or  the  United  States, 
were  required  to  act  in  the  case,  it  must  be  an  act  of  adjudi- 
cation between  debtor  and  creditor,  in  which,  after  hearing 
both  sides,  and  balancing  the  “labor”  performed  against  the 
debt  “ due,”  a decision  would  have  to  be  made  whether  any 
“service  or  labor”  remained  “due,”  or  otherwise. 

This  is  all  that  can  be  gathered  from  the  mere  language. 
Hot  only  does  it  fail  to  describe  the  case  of  fugitive  slaves, 
but  if  the  provisions  of  the  bill  were  honestly  and  rigorously 
applied  to  them,  it  would,  in  most  cases,  result  in  their  dis- 


* Mr.  Madison  tells  us  explicitly,  that  when  the  framers  of  the  Constitution  used 
the  word  “ service,"  they  were  careful  to  make  choice  of  that  term,  because  it  did 
not  express  the  condition  of  slaves , but  of  free  persons. 

“ On  motion  of  Mr.  Randolph,  the  word  ‘ servitude'  was  struck  out,  and  1 service' 
unanimously  inserted — the  former  being  thought  to  express  the  condition  of  slaves, 
and  the  latter  the  obligation  of  free  persons." — Madison  Papers,  Vol.  III.,  p.  1569. 

How  then  could  they  have  expected  that  when  they  used  the  word  “ service," 
the  people  would  understand  them  to  mean  “ servitude  ?"  But  unless  the  above 
clause  dees  mean  “servitude'’  and  not  “ service,”  it  cannot  mean  fugitive  slaves  1 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


229 


charge',  as  nothing  would  b^  found  “ due”  from  them,  even 
admitting  that  they  could  sustain  the  relation  of  debtors. 

But,  as  already  noticed,  the  language  does  describe  the  case 
of  persons  owing  service  or  labor,  by  voluntary  contract. 
And  there  were  circumstances  that  might  be  supposed  to  call 
for  some  such  provision  at  that  time,  and  in  the  city  of  Phila- 
delphia, where  the  Convention  was  sitting.  It  was  common 
for  ship-masters  there,  in  accordance  with  previous  contract, 
to  advertise  and  sell  at  public  auction,  whole  ship-loads  of 
“ German  redemptioners,”  as  they  were  called,  or  emigrant 
laborers.  That  is,  their  services  were  sold  for  a term  of  time, 
sufficient  to  pay  for  their  passage.  And  this  shows,  by-the- 
by,  that  the  mere  phrases  “ buying  and  selling”  men,  does 
not  prove  them  to  be  chattel  slaves.  These  “ persons  held  to 
service  and  labor  in  one  State,  under  the  laws  thereof,”  were 
in  the  habit,  in  great  numbers,  of  “ escaping  to  another”  State, 
and  thus  evading  the  payment  of  their  j ust  dues.  This  was 
the  ground  of  much  complaint,  and  it  would  be  considered 
proper  that  they  should  ube  delivered  up,  on  claim  of  the 
party  to  whom  such  service  or  labor  (might)  be  due.” 

And  is  there  the  slightest  evidence  that  the  people  of  the 
Northern  States,  in  adopting  the  Constitution,  understood  that 
the  clause  referred  to  fugitive  slaves  ?*  While  the  Quakers 

* An  unexpected  answer  to  this  query  comes  to  hand  while  we  are  penning  it,  in 
a speech  of  Hon.  Daniel  Webster,  in  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  July  17,  1850. 
Alluding  to  a letter  of  Gov.  Berkeley  of  Virginia,  to  Gov.  Endicott  of  Massachusetts, 
in  1644,  in  which  the  latter  is  requested  to  return  some  fugitive  “ servants ,”  Mr. 
Webster  proceeds  to  say : 

“ At  that  day,  I do  not  suppose  there  were  a great  many  slaves  in  Massachusetts, 
but  there  was  an  extensive  system  of  apprenticeship,,  and  hundreds  of  persons  were 
hound  apprentices  in  Massachusetts,  some  of  whom  would  run  away.  They  were  as 
likely  to  run  away  to  Virginia  as  anywhere  else  ; and  in  such  cases,  they  were 
returned,  upon  demand,  to  their  masters.  So  true  is  that,  that  it  was  found  neces- 
sary, in  the  early  laws  of  Massachusetts,  to  make  provision  for  the  seizure  and 
return  of  runaway  apprentices.  In  all  the  revisions  of  our  laws,  this  provision 
remains ; and  here  it  is  in  the  revised  statutes  now  before  me.  It  provides  that 
runaway  apprentices  shall  be  secured  upon  the  application  of  their  masters,  or  any 
one  on  their  behalf,  and  put  into  jail  until  they  can  be  sent  for  by  their  masters  ; and 
there  is  no  trial  by  jury  in  their  case,  either.” 

A very  important  and  timely  distinction  of  Mr.  Webster,  unless  he  means  to 
insinuate  the  identity  of  “ hound  apprentices  in  Massachusetts”  with  slaves  ! 


230 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


of  Pennsylvania  and  Rhode  Islqpd,  and  other  friends  of  free- 
dom, objected  so  strongly  to  the  twenty  years  of  respite  to 
the  slave  trade  (Rhode  Island  withholding  her  ratification 
from  that  clause),  is  it  credible  that  no  complaint  would  have 
been  made  against  a provision  understood  to  require  the 
return  of  fugitive  slaves  ? 

In  “ The  Federalist'1 — by  Madison,  Jay,  and  Hamilton — in 
defence  of  the  Federal  Constitution,*  removing  objections, 
and  persuading  the  people  to  adopt  it,  Mr.  Madison  himself 
devotes  ample  space  to  a consideration  of  the  objections 
against  the  apportionment  of  representation,  and  the  twenty 
years  respite  to  the  slave  trade,  the  latter  of  which  Mr.  Madi- 
son regrets.  Is  it  credible  that  he  would  have  omitted  to 
notice  the  clause  requiring  the  return  of  fugitive  slaves,  if 
the  people  had  understood  that  there  was  such  a provision  ? 
Could  he  have  passed  it  by,  as  he  does,  in  silence?  Or,  what 
can  we  imagine  he  would  have  said  of  it,  with  those  memoranda 
in  his  desk,  since  published,  affirming  that  the  Convention 
unanimously  defined  the  term  “ service ” as  applying  only  to 
“the  obligation  of  free  persons ” — affirming,  also,  that,  as  a 
member  of  the  Convention,  he  would  not  “ introduce  into 
the  Constitution  the  idea  that  there  could  be  property  in 
man.f” 

In  the  whole  volume,  of  nearly  five  hundred  pages,  we  have 


Compare  this  statement  with  the  language  of  the  Constitution,  and  it  is  easy  to 
see  how  the  good  people  of  Massachusetts  (in  the  absence  of  any  of  our  more  modern 
expositions  and  uses  of  that  instrument),  would  be  likely  to  understand  the  provi- 
sion. Whatever  he  may  have  intended  by  alluding  to  these  facts,  he  entirely  fails 
to  sustain  the  claims  of  the  slaveholders.  He  turned  their  boasted  constitutional 
requisition  in  quite  another  direction  ! He  shows  us  how  the  people  of  Massachu- 
setts would  have  required  such  a provision  if  there  had  been  no  slaves  in  the 
country ! 

Another  fact,  before  noticed,  becomes  particularly  interesting  in  this  connection. 
The  attentive  and  thoughtful  reader  of  the  preceding  history  will  be  very  likely, 
just  here,  to  remember  that  there  is  no  evidence  that  there  were,  legally,  any 
“ slaves"  in  Virginia  in  1644,  when  Gov.  Berkeley  requested  the  return  of  some 
“ servants .” — See  Chapter  II. 

* These  papers  were  at  the  time  circulated  among  the  people  in  the  public  jour- 
nals, and  were  afterwards  collected  into  a volume. 

t Madison  Papers,  Vol.  III.,  pp.  1429-30. 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


231 


been  unable  to  detect  a single  paragraph  referring  to  the  sub- 
ject of  fugitive  slaves,  though  much  space  is  devoted  to  an 
enumeration  of  the  causes  and  dangers  of  disagreement  be- 
tween the  States,  and  the  importance  of  harmony  between 
them. 

These  facts  are  introduced,  here,  not  as  forestalling  or  even 
as  discussing  the  constitutional  question  involved,  but  for  the 
simple  purpose  of  showing,  distinctly  and  fully,  under  what 
circumstances  the  law  of  1793  was  enacted. 

Six  years  had  now  elapsed,  since  the  Constitution  had  been 
drafted,  and  four  years  since  it  had  gone  into  operation.  Du- 
ring all  this  time  there  had  been  no  law  for  returning  figitive  slaves, 
as  there  had  been  none  under  the  old  confederation.  There 
had  been  no  public  anticipation  of  such  a law — no  general  un- 
derstanding that  the  duty  of  such  an  enactment  devolved  on 
the  Federal  Congress — and,  what  is  still  more  remarkable — no 
complaints,  much  less,  no  loud  and  boisterous  clamors,  from 
slaveholders,  on  account  of  the  absence  of  such  a law.  ISTor  is 
it  credible,  that  at  a time  when  manumissions  were  so  exten- 
sive, and  .the  spirit  of  liberty  and  opposition  to  slavery  so 
widely  diffused,  there  were  not  considerable  numbers  of  success- 
ful escapes.  A female  slave  of  President  Washington  himself 
is  understood  to  have  escaped  to  New  Hampshire,  during  some 
part  of  his  administration,  whether  before  or  after  this  enact- 
ment we  cannot  now  say.  The  President,  it  seems,  sent  a 
messenger  after  her,  but  Gov.  Gilman,  not  having  learned  his 
ethics  from  Moses  Stuart  nor  his  constitutional  expositions 
from  Daniel  Webster,  neglected  a fair  opportunity  to  arrest 
her — though  apprized  of  the  wishes  of  the  illustrious  claimant 
— and  even  assisted  in  putting  her  out  of  the  reach  of  her  pur- 
suers ; an  act  for  which  the  present  Federal  courts  would  have 
subjected  him  to  a heavy  fine — a process  not  to  be  adventured, 
in  those  days.* 

Very  possibly  it  may  have  been  in  consequence  of  some 

* The  particulars,  which  went  the  rounds  of  the  papers  a few  years  since,  were 
taken  from  the  lips  of  the  aged  woman  herself,  who  was  then  living  in  New-  Hamp- 
shire. 


232 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


cases  of  this  description  that  the  slaveholders  in  Congress  intro- 
duced the  law  of  1793.  They  seem  to  have  understood  the 
tactics  of  such  legislation.  The  act  is  couched  in  language  re- 
sembling that  of  the  Constitutional  provision  already  cited. 
Without  any  direct  mention  of  slaves,  it  is  so  framed  that  a 
court  of  slaveholders,  or  those  who  are  appointed  by  them, 
could  make  it  answer  their  purpose.  It  is  no  new  thing  for 
those  who  would  “ frame  mischief  by  a law”  to  cover  up  their 
designs  by  ambiguities  that  the  people  will  not,  at  first,  under- 
stand, and  thus  prevent  opposition  and  excitement.  The  con- 
sequence, not  unfrequently,  is,  that  the  enactment  is  con- 
structed so  loosely,  that  honest  statesmen  and  jurists,  when- 
ever they  come  upon  the  stage,  will  set  them  aside,  as  usurpa- 
tions, or  as  inadequate  for  the  purposes  to  which  they  had 
been  applied.  An  example  we  have,  in  the  acta  of  Parliament 
under  which  the  slave  trade  was  sheltered,  but  which  Mr. 
Pitt,  (as  before  noticed)  declared  to  be  even  prohibitory  of  the 
practice.* 

The  enactment  now  under  review  bears  marks  of  a similar 
character,  and  nothing  on  the  face  of  it  would  be  likely  to  ex- 
cite general  alarm  or  suspicion.  Yet  the  courts,  in  due  time, 
took  care  to  give  it  a meaning  adverse  to  freedom ; though 
eminent  jurists  are  beginning  to  deny  the  constitutionality  of 
some  of  its  provisions,  particularly  that  cardinal  feature  of  it, 
sustained  by  the  Federal  Courts,  hitherto,  by  which  it  assumes 
for  Congress , on  behalf  of  the  United  States , the  prerogative  of 
providing  for  the  return  of  fugitive  slaves,  f 


* The  enactments  under  cover  of  which  the  courts  have  carried  on  religious 
persecutions,  have  very  commonly  been  of  the  same  vague  and  ambiguous  charac- 
ter, and  for  the  same  reasons.  Even  the  intended  victims  of  such  laws  have  thus 
been  quieted  and  prevented  from  a timely  opposition  to  them.  How  important  to 
guard  the  people  against  such  arts  ! 

+ See  Jay’s  View  of  the  action  of  the  Federal  Government  in  behalf  of  Slavery, 
p.  30.  Since  penning  the  above  paragraph,  the  testimony  of  an  aged  and  prominent 
citizen  has  thrown  further  light  on  this  subject.  An  “immense  meeting”  of 
citizens  of  Boston,  for  repudiating  the  Fugitive  Slave  Law  of  1850,  was  held  in 
Faneuil  Hall,  October  14,  of  the  same  year.  The  “call  ” to  this  meeting  was  headed 
by  the  venerable  Josiah  Quincy,  formerly  Mayor  of  Boston,  and  since  President  of 
Harvard  University,  Cambridge,  “ more  than  four  score  years  of  age.”  In  a letter 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


233 


“ By  the  act  of  1793,  the  slaveholder  may,  himself,  without  oath  or 
process  of  any  kind,  seize  his  prey,  where  he  can  find  him,  and  at  his 
leisure  (for  no  time  is  specified),  drag  him  before  any  justice  of  the  peace, 
in  the  place,  whom  he  way  prefer.”  “ Before  this  magistrate,  who  is  not 
authorized  to  compel  the  attendance  of  witnesses  in  such  a case,  the  slave- 
holder brings  his  victim,  and  if  he  can  satisfy  this  judge  of  his  own  choice, 
‘ by  oral  testimony  or  affidavit,’  and,  for  aught  that  appears  in  the  law,  by 
his  own  oath,  that  his  claim  is  well  founded,  the  wretched  prisoner  is  sur- 
rendered to  him  a slave  for  life,  torn  from  his  wife  and  children,  bereft  of 
all  the  rights  of  humanity,  and  converted  into  a chattel,  an  article  of  mer- 
chandize, a beast  of  burden.” — Jay's  View,  pp.  31-2. 

“ The  Federal  Constitution  declares*  ‘ In  all  suits  at  common  law,  where 
the  value  in  controversy  shall  exceed  twenty  dollars,  the  right  of  trial  by 
jury  shall  be  preserved  but  the  act  of  1793,  in  suits  in  which  ‘ the  value 
in  controversy’  exceeds  all  estimation,  dispenses  with  trial  by  jury,  and  in- 
deed with  almost  every  safeguard  of  justice  and  personal  liberty.” — lb., 
p.  32. 

To  suppose  that  such  a statute  is  constitutional,  is  to  sup- 
pose that  the  Constitution  does  not  secure  our  liberties.  To 
suppose  that  it  could  be  legally  binding,  would  be  to  reverse 
the  foundation  maxims  of  universal  Common  Law,  and  to 
deny  that  “ Statutes  contrary  to  fundamental  morality  are 
void.” 


addressed  to  J.  I.  Bowditeh,  Esq.,  and  read  at  the  meeting,  Mr.  Quincy  states  that 
the  law  of  1793  excited,  from  the  first,  “the  surprise  and  utter  disgust”  of  “every 
class  of  citizens  in  Massachusetts,”  and  that  “ they  regarded  that  law  as  violating 
the  principle  of  the  compact , as  they  understood  it,  when  they  acceded  to  the  Constitu- 
tion of  the  United  States' ’ He  states  that  in  the  year  1794,  he  was  sent  for  to 
defend,  as  counsellor  at  law,  a slave  who  had  been  arrested  under  this  act.  In  his 
defence,  he  “ denied  the  authority  of  the  law  of  Congress,  and  of  the  magistrate 
under  it,  to  deliver  an  inhabitant  of  Massachusetts  into  the  custody  of  another, 
unless  after  trial  by  jury  according  to  the  constitution  of  this  State.”  While  he 
was  speaking,  a confusion  and  loud  noise  interrupted  him,  and  the  alleged  slave 
passed  out  and  escaped ! About  two  weeks  after,  Rufus  Greene  Amory,  a lawyer 
of  eminence,  received  a letter  from  the  master  of  the  slave,  directing  him  to  prose- 
cute Josiah  Quincy  for  obstructing  his  agent ! Mr.  Amory,  who  shewed  the  letter 
to  Mr.  Quincy,  “ felt  the  folly  of  the  pretense,”  and  Mr.  Quincy  heard  nothing 
more  of  the  prosecution. 

"It  is  said  that  for  many  years  after  the  passage  of  this  bill,  the  owners  of  fugitive 
slaves  seldom,  if  ever,  made  use  of  it,  or  attempted  it,  except  in  the  case  at  Boston. 
Instead  of  this,  they  resorted  to  various  stratagems  to  decoy  them.  Long  after- 
wards, and  up  to  a recent  date,  the  process  was  a covert  one,  under  pretense  of 
arrests  for  petty  thefts. 


234 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


We  next  glance  at  the  legitimate  workings  of  that  manifestly, 
unconstitutional  act  of  Congress  of  16th  of  July,  1790,  by' 
which  the  Federal  Government  extended  the  then  expiring 
slave  laws  of  Maryland  and  Virginia  over  the  District  of 
Columbia. 

A Committee  of  Congress  on  the  District  of  Columbia, 
reported,  16th  July,  1827,  that,  in  the  County  of  Washington, 
ceded  by  Maryland, 

“ If  a free  man  of  color  should  be  apprehended  as  a runaway,  he  is  sub- 
jected to  the  payment  of  all  fees  and  rewards  given  by  law  for  apprehending 
runaways  ; and  upon  failure  to  make  such  payment,  is  liable  to  be  sold  as  a 
slave ! ”* 

“That  is”  (says  Judge  Jay),  “a  man  acknowledged  to  be  free,  and  un- 
accused of  any  offence,  is  to  be  sold  as  a slave,  to  pay  the  fees  and  rewards 
given  by  law  for  apprehending  runaways  !" — lb.,  p.  37. 

The  Committee’s  report  further  states,  “ that  in  the  part  of  the  District 
ceded  by  Virginia,  a free  negro  maybe  arrested,  and  put  in  jail  for  three 
months,  on  suspicion  of  being  a fugitive.  He  is  then  hired  out  to  pay  his 
jail  fees,  and  if  he  does  not  prove  his  freedom  within  twelve  months,  is  to 
be  sold  as  a slave  ! ” — lb.,  p.  36. 

And  yet,  on  hearing  this  Report,  Congress  made  no  altera- 
tion of  these  laws. 

Mr.  Jay  has  further  shown  how  the  law  offers  to  the  only 
JLfDGE,  in  this  case  (the  Marshal  of  the  District)  a high  bribe  to 
sell  men  he  knows  to  be  free , and  thus  become  a manufacturer  of 
slaves!  The  proceeds  of  the  sale  remain  in  his  pocket,  after 
the  sale,  unless  the  master  of  the  person  arrested  appears,  and 
claims  the  balance. — See  Jay's  View , p.  35-6. 

All  this  appears  to  be  under  the  Maryland  act  of  1719,  May 
session,  chap.  2,  (as  cited  by  Sunderland,  in  his  Anti-Slavery 
Manual,  page  92,)  and  re-enacted  in  the  manner  already  no- 
ticed, in  1790,  by  the  Congress  of  the  United  States! 


* That  this  law  is  not  a dead  letter,  or  an  empty  abstraction,  is  proved  by  the 
statement  of  Judge  Cranch,  and  more  than  one  thousand  citizens  of  the  District, 
who  say,  in  their  petition  to  Congress  in  1823,  against  the  slave  trade  in  the  Dis- 
trict, that  colored  persons  entitled  to  freedom  are  lodged  in  jail  as  runaways,  and 
then  sold  to  the  traders  ! And  they  narrate  a particular  instance. — See  Sunderland's 
Anti- Slavery  Manual,  p.  93. 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


235 


Another  item  will  indicatg  the  incipient  apostacy  of  that 
period.  The  Federal  Constitution  had  recognized  no  distinc- 
tions on  account  of  color:  Any  attempt,  in  that  direction, 
would  have  been  abortive.  In  the  forming  of  the  Articles  of 
Confederation,  in  1778,  the  proposal  to  introduce  the  word 
“white”  before  “inhabitants”  had  been  significantly  rejected. 
How,  notice  the  contrast. 

“ So  early  as  1790,  Congress  passed  an  act  describing  the  mode  in  which 
‘ any  white  person’  might  be  naturalized  and  admitted  to  the  rights  of  an 
American  citizen.” — Jay's  View,  p.  24. 

“Two  years  after  (1792),  an  act  was  passed  for  organizing  the  militia, 
which  was  to  consist  of  ‘ each  and  every  free,  able-bodied,  white  male 
citizen.’  ” — lb. 

Thus  were  the  free  colored  population  degraded  and  spurned 
from  the  national  defense.  The  bad  precedent  was  followed 
by  succeeding  administrations,  in  other  acts  of  indignity  to- 
ward that  class  of  citizens  ; and  all  at  the  bidding  of  - slavery. 

In  1796,  Tennessee,  another  Slave  State,  was  admitted  into 
the  Union.  Kentucky  has  been  previously  admitted. 

Up  to  this  point  we  have  only  traced  the  action  of  the 
Federal  Government,  in  behalf  of  slavery,  under  the  adminis- 
tration of  the  first  President , with  some  of  the  direct  effects  of 
that  policy.  During  this  period,  we  have  seen  the  beginning 
of  compromise,  servility,  and  evasion,  on  the  part  of  the  na- 
tional Congress.  We  have  seen  the  acceptance  of  the  terri- 
tory constituting  Tennessee,  on  the  condition,  imposed  by 
North  Carolina,  that  it  should  remain  sacred  to  slavery.  We 
have  seen  the  unconstitutional  establishment  of  slavery  in  the 
District  of  Columbia,  through  the  re-enactment,  by  Congress, 
of  the  Slave  Laws  of  Virginia  and  Maryland,  including  the 
authorized  sale  of  free  citizens  into  slavery,  for  the  payment 
of  the  expenses  of  their  unwarrantable  imprisonment!  We 
have  seen  the  admission  into  the  Union,  of  two  new  Slave 
States.  We  have  seen  the  Constitution  again  violated,  and 
the  sacred  right  of  trial  by  jury  cloven  down,  where  the  ques- 
tion of  freedom  and  slavery  is  involved,  by  the  law  of  1793, 
for  reclaiming  fugitive  slaves.  We  have  seen  the  Constitution 


236 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


further  violated  by  the  introduction  of  caste,  and  the  virtus! 
establishment  of  a privileged  order,  founded  on  birth,  o' 
blood,  in  our  naturalization  and  militia  laws. 

And  all  this,  under  the  administration  and  with  the  sanctio 
of  George  Washington,  whom  we  have  been  taught  to  eon 
sider  the  pattern  of  everything  that  is  republican  and  chris 
tian. 

We  would  gladly  cast  the  veil  of  oblivion  over  such  facts 
but  they  form  a part  of  the  public  history  of  our  country 
There  they  stand,  on  the  imperishable  record  of  the  past 
which  we  may  neither  falsify,  nor  overlook,  nor  obliterate 
We  must  know  them,  or  not  understand  the  history  of  ou 
country.  We  must  ponder  them,  and  judge  righteously  con 
cerning  them,  if  we  would  solve  the  problem  on  which  i: 
suspended  our  nation’s  freedom.  We  are  permitted  to  con 
sole  ourselves  with  the,  refreshing  remembrance,  that  Wash 
ington,  by  his  last  Will  and  Testament,  emancipated  all  hi: 
slaves  at  his  decease,  thus  writing  his  own  condemnation  ant 
recantation  of  all  he  had  ever  done  in  support  of  slavery 
But  his  own  condemnation  of  the  wrong,  should  not  silenct 
ours.  The  administration  even  of  Washington  exhibits  its 
catalogue  of  national  sins,  which  must  be  penitently  confessed 
and  put  away,  if  we  would  enjoy,  as  a nation,  the  forgiveness 
and  the  blessing  of  Heaven.  Above  all,  we  must  learn  tc 
repudiate  the  folly,  and  abhor  the  impiety  of  thrusting  the 
name  or  the  statue  of  Washington  between  the  sin  of  op- 
pressive legislation  and  the  laws  of  the  most  High  God.  As 
well  might  we  set  up  the  graven  image  of  any  other  national 
idol  as  to  set  up  his* 


* It  might  serve  to  correct  our  extravagant  adulation  of  Washington,  Jefferson, 
and  our  other  national  idols,  if  we  would  remember  their  almost  violent  opposition 
to  each  other,  as  the  heads  of  rival  parties,  criticising  and  even  criminating  each 
other,  quite  as  eagerly  as  their  successors  have  ever  done.  By  some  of  the  jour- 
nalists supporting  Mr.  Jefferson,  the  retirement  of  Washington  was  hailed  as  a 
national  deliverance.  On  the  other  hand,  the  zealous  partizaus  of  Washington  and 
Adams  regarded  the  elevation  of  Jefferson  as  a great  public  calamity,  preached  ser- 
mons to  prevent  it,  and  fasted  and  lamented  when  it  took  place.  We  have  no  occa- 
sion to  renew  those  contentions,  which  became  personal  and  bitter  between  the  first 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


237 


* 


CHAPTER  XX. 

Subsequent  action  of  the  federal  government— colored 

PEOPLE — SLAVE  TERRITORY — NEW  SLAVE  STATES — FEDERAL 
DISTRICT. 

Session  of  Georgia  and  South  Carolina — Mississippi  Territory — Admission  of  Ken- 
tucky, Tennessee,  Alabama,  Mississippi — Missouri — Purchase  of  Louisiana  and 
Florida — Four  more  Slave  States — Missouri  Compromise — Instances  of  prohibiting 
Slavery — Government  of  the  Federal  District — A great  Slave  mart — Testimony  of 
a Grand  Jury  of  the  District  (1802) — Of  Judge  Morrell  (1816) — John  Randolph 
and  Alexandria  Gaz.  (1827) — Petition  of  Judge  Crunch  and  others  (1828) — “ Wash. 
Spectator”  (1830) — Insecurity  of  Northern  Citizens — Crandall,  Chaplin,  &c. 

Having  traced  the  beginnings  of  our  national  declension, 
ye  must  proceed  with  the  remaining  part  of  the  history.  The 
yhole  might  almost  be  read,  by  anticipation,  from  the  germ 
ilready  examined.  Ho  subsequent  administration,  amid  all 
>ur  fluctuations  of  national  policy,  has  run  counter  to  the  pro- 
■lavery  precedent  furnished  by  the  first. 

The  insult  to  colored  citizens,  commenced  by  the  naturaliza- 
ion  and  militia  laws,  under  the  administration  of  Washington, 
?as  renewed  and  extended  by  the  law  organizing  the  Post 
Dffi.ee  Department,  under  Mr.  Madison,  in  1810,  providing 
hat  “ no  other  than  a free  white  person  shall  be  employed 
n carrying  the  mail  of  the  United  States,  either  as  a post 
■ider  or  driver  of  a carriage  carrying  the  mail,”  under  a pen- 
alty of  fifty  dollars. — Jay's  View , p.  24. 


wo  \ irginian-Presidents.  We  may  admire  much  in  the  one  and  in  the  other,  but 
re  must  be  indeed  stupid  to  regard  them  infallible,  or  shipwreck  our  liberties  in 
rder  to  follow  them  implicitly,  or  revise  or  throw  away  our  Bibles  and  declarations 
f self-evident  truths,  in  order  to  avoid  seeing  their  inconsistencies,  or  in  deference 
o the  imaginary  and  immaculate  saintship  of  either  of  them. 


238 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


In  1820,  under  Mr.  Monroe,  Congress  authorized  the  white. 
citizens  of  Washington  to  elect  white  city  officers ! These" 
white  officers  were  authorized  “ to  prescribe  the  terms  or. 
which  free  negroes  and  mulattoes  may  reside  in  the  city,”  and 
they  exercised  this  absurd  and  wicked  authority  in  the  very 
spirit  in  which  was  conferred. — lb.  p.  25-26. 

SLAVE  TERRITORIES  AND  NEW  SLAVE  STATES. 

Slavery  under  jurisdiction  of  Congress,  and  commencing 
under  the  administration  of  Washington,  has  been  continued 
ever  since.  Not  only  in  the  District  of  Columbia  has  this 
been  done,  but  in  Territories  belonging  to  the  United  States, 
has  the  institution  been  fostered,  preparatory  to  the  admission 
of  them  as  new  Slave  States  into  the  Union. 

In  1802,  Georgia  ceded  to  the  United  States  the  country  lying  between 
her  present  western  limit  and  the  Mississippi,  stipulating  that  the  Ordinance 
of  1787,  in  all  its  provisions,  should  extend  to  the  ceded  territory,  “ that 
article  only  excepted  which  forbids  slavery.”  This  cession  was  accepted, 
and  the  territory  placed  under  a Territorial  Government,  restricted  from  all 
interference  with  slavery." — Speech  of  S.  P.  Chase,  U.  S.  Senate,  March 
26,  1850. 

This  was  under  the  administration  and  with  the  concurrence 
of  Mr.  Jefferson,  author  of  the  Notes  on  Virginia,  the  De- 
claration of  Independence,  and  the  Ordinance  of  1787.  This 
added,  in  due  time,  the  two  Slave  States  of  Mississippi  and 
Alabama,  to  “our  glorious  Union  !”  The  former  was  admit- 
ted in  1817,  and  the  latter  in  1819,  both  under  the  adminis- 
tration of  Mr.  Monroe. 

Thus  it  appears  that  since  the  adoption  of  the  Federal 
Constitution,  in  1789,  we  have  admitted  into  the  Union  the 
four  Slave  States  of  Kentucky,  Tennessee,  Alabama,  and 
Mississippi,  from  territory  within  our  original  limits and, 
except  in  the  case  of  Kentucky,  the  National  Government 
has  previously  protected  slavery  in  them,  while  exercising 
authority  over  them,  as  territories,  previous  to  their  admis- 
sion into  the  Union  as  independent  states. 

But  this  is  not  all.  The  national  resources  have  been  ex- 


SLAVERY, AND  FREEDOM. 


289 


pended  to  purchase  new  territory  for  the  erection  and  admis- 
sion of  new  Slave  States. 

In  1803,  we  acquired  Louisiana  by  purchase  from  the  French  Republic. * 
There  were  at  that  time  about  forty  thousand  slaves  held  within  its  limits, 
under  the  French  law.  The  treaty  contained  this  stipulation  : 

“The  inhabitants  of  the  ceded  territory  shall  be  incorporated  in  the 
Union  of  the  United  States,  and  admitted  as  soon  as  possible,  according  to 
the  principles  of  the  Federal  Constitution,  to  the  enjoyment  of  all  the 
rights,  advantages,  and  immunities  of  citizens  of  the  United  States  ; and, 
in  the  meantime,  they  shall  be  maintained  in  the  free  enjoyment  of  their 
liberty,  property,  and  the  religion  which  they  profess.” — 8 Stat.  at  Large, 
U.  S.,  202. 

This  stipulation,  interpreted  according  to  the  plain  sense  of  its  terms, 
and  carried  into  practical  effect,  would  have  enfranchised  every  slave  in 
Louisiana  : for  no  one,  I apprehend,  will  venture  to  affirm  that  the  slaves 
were  not  inhabitants.  Independently  of  this  stipulation,  it  was  the  duty  of 
the  Government — even  more  imperative  than  in  1787,  for  since  then  the 
whole  country  south  of  the  Ohio  and  east  of  the  Mississippi  had  been 
formed  into  slave  States  and  slave  Territories — to  establish  freedom  as 
the  fundamental  law  of  the  new  acquisition.  But  this  duty  was  not  per- 
formed. There  was  some  feeble  legislation  against  the  introduction  of 
slaves  from  foreign  countries,  and  of  slaves  imported  since  1798  from  the 
other  States ; but  that  was  all,  and  that  was  useless. — Speech  of  S.  P. 
Chase,  U.  S.  Senate,  March  26,  1850. 

This,  too,  was  under  the  administration  of  Mr.  Jefferson. 
The  purchase  was,  with  him,  a favorite  measure,  and  it  is 
not  known  to  the  writer  that  he  proposed  the  abolition  of 
the  slavery  existing  there.  So  strong  were  his  impressions, 
at  one  time,  that  the  purchase  transcended  the  Constitutional 
powers  of  the  Federal  Government,  that  he  contemplated 
recommending  an  amendment  to  the  Constitution  for  that 
'special  object,  but  he  finally  persuaded  himself  that  the people 
were  so  desirous  of  the  purchase  that  the  formality  of  an 
imendment  might  be  waived  ! 

Then  came  the  cession  of  Florida  by  Spain  in  1819.  The  stipulation  in 
he  treaty  was  substantially  the  same  as  in  the  treaty  with  France ; j the 


* This  was  at  a cost  to  the  nation  of  fifteen  millions  of  dollars, 
t 8 U.  S.  Stat.  at  Large,  256,  as  quoted  by  Mr.  Chase. 


240 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


duty  of  the  Government  in  respect  to  the  acquisition  was  the  same ; and 
there  was  the  same  failure  to  perform  it. 

Finally,  Texas  came  in,  in  1845,  not  as  a Territory,  but  as  a State. — 
<S.  P.  Chase , as  above. 

The  purchase  of  Florida,  for  the  sum  of  five  millions  of 
dollars,  was  under  the  administration  of  Mr.  Monroe.  The 
annexation  of  Texas  was  under  that  of  Mr.  Tyler. 

The  purchase  of  Louisiana  resulted  in  the  admission  of  three 
new  Slave  States,  formed  out  of  the  purchased  territory,  viz : 
Louisiana,  admitted  under  the  administration  of  Mr.  Madi- 
son, in  1812;  Missouri,  (after  much  debate,  and  a so  called  • 
“compromise”)  under  Mr.  Monroe,  in  1821;  and  Arkansas, 
under  General  Jackson,  in  1836.  Florida  was  admitted  under 
Mr.  Tyler,  March  3,  1845. 

The  dates  and  the  names  of  the  Presidents  show  the  con- 
tinuity of  the  policy,  during  the  long  lapse  of  time,  and  under 
the  successive  administrations  of  the  Government. 

The  contest  concerning  the  admission  of  Missouri  as  a slave 
state,  occurred  during  the  Congressional  session  of  1819-20, 
and  was  decided  in  March,  1820.  The  proposal  for  the 
admission  of  Missouri,  was  artfully  coupled  with  a pro- 
posal for  the  admisson  of  Maine,  a free  state.  It  was  con- 
tended that  the  one  was  an  equitable  balance  for  the  other. 
But  this  plea  did  not  satisfy  the  North.  The  “compromise” 
consisted  in  the  introduction  of  a provision  that  in  the  future 
admission  of  States  from  the  residue  of  that  territory,  the 
line  of  division  between  slavery  and  freedom  should  be  the 
parallel  of  36°  30'  North  latitude,  the  northern  side  of  that 
line  being  appropriated  to  freedom.  This  proposal  was  resisted 
manfully  for  a time,  but  under  a threat  of  dissolving  the 
Union,  it  was  carried  by  a small  majority  in  the  House.  But 
the  vote  fixing  the  conditions  of  the  future  admission  of  a 
State  could  not  bind  a future  Congress,  so  that  the  “ compro- 
mise,” as  usual,  gave  the  South  all,  and  the  North  nothing. 

Four  new  slave  states  from  our  original  territory,  four 
more  from  territory  acquired  by  purchase,  and  one  from  an- 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM.  241 

nexation,  make  nine  added  in  all,  to  the  dominion  of  slavery, 
and  to  the  strength  of  the  Slave  Power. 

It  is  proper  to  record  here,  the  instances  of  Federal  legisla- 
tion of  an  opposite  character. 

By  the  7th  section  of  the  act  organizing  a Territorial  Government  for 
Mississippi,  passed  in  1798,*  the  importation  of  slaves  into  said  Territory 
from  any  place  without  the  United  States,  was  prohibited  under  severe 
penalties.  This  was  ten  years  before  Congress  had  the  power,  under  the 
Constitution,  to  prohibit  the  importation  of  slaves  into  the  States. — Speech 
of  Mr.  Bingham , of  Michigan,  in  Congress,  June  4,  1850,  Nat.  Era, 
July  18. 

This  was  under  the  administration  of  John  Adams. 

On  the  7th  of  May,  1800,  an  act  was  passed  for  the  organization  of  a 
territorial  Government  for  Indiana,  and  slavery  expressly  prohibited  therein. 

This  act  was  approved  by  John  Adams. 

January  11,  1805,  the  northern  part  of  Indiana  was  erected  into  the  ter- 
ritory of  Michigan,  and  slavery  prohibited.  February  3,  1809,  the  Terri- 
tory of  Illinois  was  established,  with  the  like  prohibition  as  to  slavery. 
These  two  latter  acts  received  the  approval  and  signature  of  Thomas 
Jefferson. 

On  the  20th  of  April,  1836,  Wisconsin  was  organized  as  a Territory, 
■md  slavery  prohibited  within  its  limits.  This  act  was  approved  by  General 
Jackson. 

The  Territory  of  Iowa  was  established  by  act  of  Congress  of  the  12th 
if  June,  1838,  under  the  administration  of  Mr.  Van  Buren ; and  here  also 
vas  slavery  prohibited. 

On  the  14th  of  August,  1848,  the  Territory  of  Oregon  was  organized, 
vhich  contained  the  same  provision  in  the  memorable  and  time-honored 
vords,  “ there  shall  be  neither  slavery  nor  involuntary  servitude  therein, 
:xcept  for  the  punishment  of  crime.” — lb. 

This  was  under  the  administration  of  Mr.  Polk. 

These  acts  concerning  Indiana,  Michigan,  Wisconsin,  Iowa 
tnd  Oregon,  were  only  in  pursuance  of  the  Ordinance  of 
.787,  yet  they  are  so  many  attestations  to  the  Constitution- 


* This  territory,  organized  in  1798,  comprised  only  a region  of  country  ceded  by 
outli  Carolina,  but  was  afterwards,  in  1804,  enlarged,  so  as  to  include  a part  of  the 
ountry  ceded  by  Georgia  in  1802,  as  stated  by  Hon.  S.  P.  Chase,  in  his  speech 
efore  quoted.  This  statement  'will  explain  an  apparent , but  not  real  discrepancy 
l dates,  in  the  two  quotations. 


10 


242 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


ality  of  that  measure,  and  the  consequent  power  of  Congress 
to  prohibit  slavery  in  the  Territories  of  the  United  States. 

The  same  principle  was  likewise  involved,  and  recognized, 
in  the  act,  before  noticed,  for  authorizing  the  admission  of 
Missouri,  in  1820,  containing,  as  it  did,  a clause  “ to  prohibit 
slavery  in  certain  territories,'1''  that  is,  in  all  the  Louisiana  pur- 
chase North  of  36°  30'  North  latitude. 

And  there  had  been  a previous  recognition  of  that  princi- 
ple, in  its  application  to  a part  of  the  same  purchase. 

By  the  act  of  the  26th  of  March,  1804,  that  part  of  Louisiana  south  of 
the  Territory  of  Mississippi  was  organized  into  a Territorial  Government,' 
by  the  name  of  Orleans.  By  this  act,  the  importation  into  said  Territory 
of  slaves  from  abroad  was  prohibited,  and  also  the  importation  of  any  slave 
from  within  the  United  States  who  should  have  been  brought  into  the 
country  since  the  1st  of  May,  1798,  or  who  should  thereafter  be  brought 
into  the  United  States.  It  further  provided  that  no  slave  should  be  brought 
into  said  Territory,  except  by  a citizen  of  the  United  States,  who  should 
remove  there  for  actual  settlement,  and  who  should  at  the  time  be  the  bona 
fide  owner  of  such  slave  ; thus  directly  interdicting  the  domestic  as  well  as 
the  foreign  slave  trade  in  this  Territory  of  Orleans.  This  act  was  ap- 
proved by  Jefferson. — Speech  of  Mr.  Bingham. 

When  President  Monroe  was  about  to  give  his  signature 
to  the  Missouri  act  of  1820,  he  required  each  member  of  his 
Cabinet,  (the  Heads  of  Departments  and  Attorney  General,) 
to  give  their  opinions  in  writing,  on  the  questions  whether 
the  act  was  consistent  with  the  Constitution,  and  whether 
“Congress  has  a right,  under  the  powers  vested  in  it,  by  the 
Constitution,  to  make  a regulation  prohibiting  slavery  in  a 
Territory?”  All  the  members  of  the  Cabinet,  including  the 
late  John  C.  Calhoun  and  John  Quincy  Adams,  gave  written 
answers  in  the  affirmative.  This  is  proved  by  the  diary  of 
J.  Q.  Adams. — See  Speech  of  T.  H.  Benton,  at  Jefferson  City, 
Mo.,  May  26,  1849,  in  New  York  Evening  Post,  June  14, 
1849. 

The  Federal  Government,  then,  in  establishing  and  foster- 
ing slavery  in  the  Territories,  has  done  so  with  the  full  know- 
ledge of  its  Constitutional  power  to  prohibit  it.  The  moral  and 
political  responsibility,  therefore,  rests  upon  it. 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM.  243 

Another  circumstance  connected  with  the  admission  of  Mis- 
souri deserves  notice. 

The  act  of  Congress  authorizing  the  people  of  Missouri  to 
form  a Constitution,  preparatory  to  admission,  was  passed  in 
March,  1820.  The  State  Constitution,  presented  at  the  next 
Congress,  contained  a clause  “ to  prevent  free  negroes  and  mu- 
lattoes  from  coming  to  and  settling  in  this  State,  under)'  any  pre- 
text ivhaterver .”  As  this  provision  was  contrary  to  the  Con- 
stitution of  the  United  States,  which  secures  “ to  the  citizens 
of  each  state  all  the  rights  and  immunities  of  citizens  in  the 
several  states,”  (many  of  the  states  having  colored  citizens)  Con- 
gress passed  an  act,  in  March,  1821,  authorizing  the  President 
to  admit  Missouri,  on  condition  that  said  clause  should  not  be 
so  construed  as  to  exclude  citizens  of  any  other  States.  Mis- 
souri complied  with  the  conditions,  and  by  proclamation  of 
the  President,  was  admitted,  August  10,  1821.  [See  Speech 
of  T.  H.  Benton,  at  Jefferson  City,  May  26,  1849.] 

This  instance  of  the  supervision  by  the  Federal  Govern- 
ment,  over  the  Constitution  of  a State  asking  admission,  and 
in  a point  touching  the  rights  of  “ negroes  and  mulattoes," 
involves  important  principles,  and  may  be  of  use  as  a prece- 
dent, hereafter. 

GOVERNMENT  OF  THE  FEDERAL  DISTRICT. 

The  District  of  Columbia  is  under  the  exclusive  jurisdic- 
tion of  the  Federal  Government.  In  another  connection  we 
have  shown  how  that  Government  was  administered  at  the 
beginning,  and  so  far  as  the  condition  of  things  there  could 
be  traced  directly  to  the  act  of  Congress  of  1790.  We  then 
saw  free  colored  citizens,  on  suspicion  of  being  fugitives  from 
slavery,  thrown  into  jail,  and  then  sold  into  slavery  with  their 
posterity  forever,  for  the  payment  of  their  jail  fees — the  ex- 
penses of  their  causeless  arrest ! We  will  now  look  again  at 
the  continuance  of  that  enormity,  in  its  connection  with  the 
:lomestic  slave  trade , systematically  carried  on  in  the  District, 

From  a number  of  causes,  the  Federal  District  has  been,  at 


244 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


some  periods,  the  principal  slave  mart  in  America.  The 
policy  of  Virginia  and  Maryland  has,  at  times,  forbidden  the 
traders  to  bring  in  slaves  from  other  States,  and  expose  them 
for  sale,  while  the  Federal  District,  under  the  policy  of  Con- 
gress., has  been  under  no  such  restriction.  The  fact  that  the 
District  is  the  resort  of  citizens  from  all  the  states,  including 
Senators  and  Representatives,  who  may  desire  to  buy  or  sell 
slaves,  has  given  it  an  advantage  over  other  slave  markets, 
which  has  been  eagerly  improved. 

As  early  as  1802,  the  grand  jury  of  Alexandria  complained 
of  this  traffic  as  a grievance  demanding  legislative  interfer- 
ence. In  1816,  Judge  Morrell,  of  the  U.  S.  Circuit  Court, 
took  notice  of  the  nuisance,  in  his  charge  to  the  grand  jury 
of  Washington.  The  same  year,  John  Randolph,  of  Virginia, 
himself  a slaveholder,  moved,  in  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives, for  a committee  to  inquire  into  the  “inhuman  and  illegal 
traffic.”*  The  Alexandria  Gazette , of  June  22,  1827,  described, 
in  terms  of  just  abhorrence,  the  scenes  witnessed  in  connec- 
tion with  the  traffic.  In  1828,  a petition,  headed  by  Judge 
Cranch,  and  signed  by  more  than  one  thousand  citizens  of 
the  Federal  District,  was  presented  to  Congress,  imploring  its 
interference.  In  1830,  the  Washington  Spectator  described  the 
traffic,  and  exclaimed,  “ Where  is  the  O’Connell  in  this  Repub- 
lic that  will  plead  for  the  emancipation  of  the  District  of 
Columbia?” 

Merchants  of  large  capital  engaged  in  the  lucrative  busi- 
ness, with  their  establishments  in  Alexandria  and  Washington 
City,  and  advertised,  “ Cash  for  five  hundred  negroes,”  with 
as  much  coolness  as  if  they  were  so  many  horses!  Franklin 
& Armfield,  Alexandria,  J.  W.  Neal  & Co.,  Washington,  Wm. 
H.  Williams,  George  Hephart,  William  H.  Richards,  &c.,  are 
or  have  been  among  the  number  of  these.  Some  of  them 
have  had  large  prison-houses  built  for  the  purpose  ; and  some- 


* This  traffic  is  doubtless  as  “ legal"  as  any  part  of  the  system.  Henry  Clay,  in 
his  famous  speech  iu  the  U.  S.  Senate,  in  1839,  declared  the  traffic  inseparable  from 
the  tenure  of  slave  property.  But  here  we  find  John  Randolph  declaring  the  traffic 
“ illegal  P'  Was  he  iu  error  ? 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


245 


times  the  public  jails,  built  by  money  appropriated  by  Con- 
gress, have  been  put  to  the  same  infamous  use.  Large  vessels 
were  advertised  and  employed  to  transport  slaves  to  New 
Orleans. 

One  dealer  advertised  for  “ any  number  of  young  and  likely 
negroes  from  eight  to  forty  years  of  age.”  As  a general  fact, 
little  or  no  regard  is  paid,  either  in  the  purchase  or  the  sale 
to  the  sanctities  of  the  family  relation,  which,  in  fact,  the  laws 
and  the  usages  of  the  system  do  not  recognize  as  existing  at 
all!  Yet  all  this,  says  Judge  Jay,  is  11  in  virtue  of  authority 
delegated  Uy  Congress and  he  cites  his  authority. 

“ The  249th  page  of  the  laws  of  the  city  of  Washington,  is  polluted  by 
the  following  enactment,  bearing  date  28th  of  July,  1831  : 

“ For  a license  to  trade  or  traffic  in  slaves,  for  profit,  four  hundred  dol- 
lars.”— Jay's  View,  p.  87. 

The  petitioners  of  1828,  before  mentioned,  including  Judge 
Crunch,  express  themselves  in  the  following  language : 

“While  the  laws  of  the  United  States  denounce  the  foreign  slave  trade 
as  piracy,  and  punish  with  death  those  who  are  found  engaged  in  its  perpe- 
tration, there  exists  in  this  District,  the  seat  of  the  Federal  Government,  a 
domestic  slave  trade,  scarcely  less  disgraceful  in  its  character,- and  even 
more  demoralizing  in  its  influence.  The  people  are,  without  their  con- 
sent, torn  away  from  their  homes ; husband  and  wife  are  frequently  sepa- 
rated, and  sold  into  distant  parts  ; children  are  taken  from  their  parents, 
without  regard  to  the  ties  of  nature,  and  the  most  endearing  bonds  of  affec- 
tion are  broken  forever.  Nor  is  this  traffic  confined  to  those  who  are  legally 
slaves  for  life.  Some  who  are  entitled  to  freedom,  and  many  who  have 
a limited  time  to  serve,  are  sold  into  unconditional  slavery,  and,  owing  to 
the  defectiveness  of  our  laws,  they  are  generally  carried  out  of  the  Dis- 
trict before  the  necessary  steps  can  be  taken  for  their  release.” — “ The 
people  of  the  District  have,  within  themselves,  no  means  of  legislative 
redress,  and  we  appeal  to  your  honorable  body  as  the  ONLY  ONE  vested 
by  the  American  Constitution  with  power  to  relieve  us.” 

But  that  “honorable  body”— a controlling  majority  of  whom 
were  from  the  non -slaveholding  States — found  other  business, 
it  would  seem,  more  to  their  taste,  than  the  granting  of  the 
prayer  of  these  petitioners  ! Yet  this  was  under  the  adminis- 
tration of  a northern  President  (John  Quincy  Adams),  whose 


246 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


power  of  appointment,  assuredly,  could  not  have  been  a rod 
• over  the  heads  of  northern  aspirants,  as  is  commonly  the  case. 
Could  there  have  been  a fear,  among  rival  partisans,  that  an 
agitation  of  “the  delicate  question”  might  affect  the  elec- 
tions ? 

The  liberties  of  Northern  citizens  are  not  secure  in  the 
Federal  District,  “under  exclusive  jurisdiction  of  Congress.” 
In  1835,  Dr.  Reuben  Crandall,  from  the  State  of  New  York, 
was  arrested,  imprisoned,  and  tried  for  his  life,  in  Washington 
City,  for  having  loaned  to  a white  citizen,  at  his  own  request, 
a pamphlet  against  slavery.  In  1850,  Gen.  Wm.  L.  Chaplin, 
from  the  same  State,  was  arrested  by  the  authorities  of  Wash- 
ington City,  on  the  charge  of  assisting  fugitives.  While  we 
are  now  writing,  two  citizens  of  free  States,  Messrs.  Drayton 
and  Sayre,  are  incarcerated  in  the  jails  of  the  Federal  Dis- 
trict, for  the  alleged  crime  of  having  assisted*  certain  citizens 
of  that  District  to  emigrate,  in  “pursuit  of  happiness,”  to 
another  portion  of  the  country,  and  enjoy  “ all  the  rights  and 
immunities  of  citizens  in  the”  “States”  of  their  intended 
residence. 


* More  correctly,  perhaps,  we  might  say,  “ On  suspicion  of  having  intended  to 
assist for  the  vessel  in  which  these  emigrants  took  passage  was  found,  and  the 
arrest  was  made,  in  the  waters  of  Maryland , the  very  State  under  whose  laws  they 
were  claimed  to  be  held  ! 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


247 


CHAPTER  SXI. 

FURTHER  ACTION  OF  THE  FEDERAL  GOVERNMENT — AMERICAN 
SLAVE  TRADE — AFRICAN  SLAVE  TRADE. 

Slave  trade  between  tbe  States,  under  jurisdiction  of  Congress — Its  nature  and 
extent — Testimony  of  T.  J.  Randolph— Niles’  Register — Natchez  Courier— Vir- 
ginia Times — Virginia  Exports — U.  S.  Gazette — Prof.  Andrews— Prof.  Dew — C.F. 
Mercer — Mr.  Gholston — H.  Clay — Negro  Speculation  of  1837 — Mississippi  Imports 
— Northern  losses  by  Southern  bankruptcy — Funds  of  the  Presb.  Church — Ship- 
ments from  Federal  District — Acts  of  Congress  regulating  the  traffic — Brig  Comet 
— Brig  Encomium — The  Enterpiye — Negotiations  with  Great  Britain  for  payment 
for  Slaves — Case  of  the  Brig  Creole — of  the  Schooner  Amistad.  African  Slave 
Trade , though  abolished,  connived  at — Duplicity  in  Negotiations  with  G.  Britain 
— Refusal  to  take  effective  measures  for  suppression — Negotiations  with  Republic 
of  Colombia — Deceptive  Act  declaring  the  trade  piracy — A plan  of  the  Virginia 
Slave-breeders — Connected  with  the  project  of  Colonization — Notice  of  various 
Acts  of  Congress  concerning  the  Slave  trade — 1794,  1800,  1803,  1807,  1S09,  1818, 
1319,  1820 — Allowed  enslavement  by  Louisiana,  of  slaves  known  to  have  been 
illegally  imported — The  abuse  founded  on  an  Act  of  Congress — No  instance  of 
a slave  trader  being  punished  with  death,  according  to  law.  La  Coste  convicted 
by  Judge  Story,  but  pardoned  by  President  Monroe. 

The  slave  trade  in  the  District  of  Columbia  is  only  a part 
of  that  detestable  traffic  carried  on  under  the  Federal  juris- 
diction. The  slave  trade  between  the  States  is  under  the 
same  jurisdiction,  for  “ Congress  shall  have  power  to  regulate  com- 
merce with  foreign  nations  and  among  the  several  States .” — U.  S. 
Constitution , Art.  I.,  Sect.  8,  Clause  3.* 


* The  legislative  acts  of  some  of  the  slave  States,  prohibiting,  from  considerations 
of  local  policy,  the  importation  of  slaves  from  other  States,  have  been  set  aside,  if 
we  mistake  not,  by  their  own  courts,  as  unconstitutional,  on  the  ground  that  the 
regulation  of  inter-State  commerce  devolves  upon  the  Federal  and  not  the  State 
Governments. 


248 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


Of  the  nature  and  extent  of  that  traffic,  we  will  present  a 
few  particulars. 

In  the  Legislature  of  Virginia,  in  1832,  Thomas  Jefferson  Randolph 
declared  that  “ the  State  had  been  converted  into  one  grand  menagerie, 
where  men  are  reared  for  the  market,  like  oxen  for  the  shambles.'’ 

Comparing  the  foreign  with  the  domestic  slave  trade,  he 
says : 

“The  African  trader  receives  the  slave,  a stranger  in  aspect,  language, 
and  manners,  from  the  merchant  who  brought  him  from  the  interior.  But 
here,  sir,  individuals  whom  the  master  has  known  from  infancy,  whom  lie  has 
seen  sporting  in  the  innocent  gambols  of  childhood,  who  have  been  accus- 
tomed to  look  up  to  him  for  protection,  he  tears  from  the  mother’s  arms, 
and  sends  into  a strange  country,  among  a strange  people,  subject  to  cruel 
task-masters.  In  my  opinion,  it  is  much  worse.” — A.  S.  Lecturer. 

No  historian  need  seek  a higher  authority  for  his  statements 
than  the  “ Register ” of  the  late  Hezekiah  Niles,  of  Baltimore, 
and,  indeed,  few  hooks  of  history 
trustwortlrp.  Hear  Mr.  Niles  : 

“ Dealing  in  slaves  has  become  a large  business.  Establishments  are 
made,  at  several  places  in  Maryland  and  Virginia,  at  which  they  are  sold 
like  cattle.  These  places  of  deposit  are  strongly  built,  and  well  supplied 
with  iron  thumb-screws  and  gags,  and  ornamented  with  cow-skins,  and  other 
whips, -oftentimes  bloody.” — Niles'  Register,  Vol.  XXXV.,  p.  4. 

“ According  to  New  Orleans  papers,  there  were  imported  into  that  port 
during  the  week  commencing  on  the  16th  ult. , from  all  ports  of  the  United 
States,  371  slaves,  principally  from  Virginia.” — lb.,  Oct.  22,  1831. 

“ Ifwas  stated  in  the  Natchez  Courier  that  during  the  year  1836  no  less 
than  two  hundred  and  fifty  thousand  slaves  were  carried  into  Mississippi, 
Alabama,  Louisiana,  and  Arkansas.” — Sunderland' s A.  S.  Manual,  p.  117 ; 
also  An.  Report  Am.  A.  S.  Soc.,  1837. 

At  an  average  price  of  $600,  this  would  amount  to  one 
hundred  and  fifty  millions  of  dollars.  This  was  a year  of 
unprecedented  activity  in  the  domestic  slave  trade. 

The  Virginia  Times  proposed  that  the  banking  capital  of 
the  State  he  increased,  from  the  money  brought  into  the  State 
from  the  sale  of  slaves.  The  editor  said  : 

“ We  have  heard  intelligent  men  estimate  the  number  of  slaves  exported 
from  Virginia  within  the  last  twelve  months  at  120,000,  each  slave  averaging 


^are  equally  authentic  and 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


249 


at  least  $600 — making  an  aggregate  of  $72,000,000.  Of  the  number  of 
slaves  exported,  not  more  than  one-third  have  been  sold  (the  others  having 
been  carried  by  their  owners  who  have  removed),  which  would  leave  in  the 
State  the  sum  of  $24,000,000  arising  from  the  sale  of  slaves.”* — An.  Rep. 
Am.  A.  S.  Soc.,  1837. 

In  January,  1840,  a correspondent  of  the  U.  S.  Gazette,  who 
signed  u Spectator  ” and  whose  accuracy  the  editor  vouched 
for,  gave  an  account  of  the  speculations  in  negroes  in  1835-6 
and  ’37,  in  which  he  said : 

11  In  three  years  the  slave  population  of  Mississippi  increased  from  70,000 
to  160,000  slaves,  at  an  average  cost  of  at  least  $1000  each,  making  the 
debt,  for  slaves  alone,  in  three  years,  swell  to  $90,000,000. ”f — .4.  S'. 
Almanac , 1846. 


* The  winding  up  of  the  business,  however,  left  little  to  increase  the  capital  of 
the  Virginia  banks.  The  slave  traders  and  Southern  purchasers  swindled  the  Vir- 
ginians out  of  a large  part  of  it.  The  courts  of  Mississippi,  under  their  State  laws, 
decided  that  the  importations  into  that  State  had  been  illegal,  and  so  the  Mississippi 
purchaser  on  credit  got  his  supply  of  slaves  for  nothing ! Virginia  took  the  insult 
very  quietly,  without  a single  threat  of  “dissolving  the  Union,”  aud  made  ample 
reprisals,  by  stretching  her  now  swollen  credit,  in  lavish  expenditures,  to  double 
the  amount,  with  the  dough-face  merchants  and  bankers  of  Philadelphia  and  New 
York,  for  which  she  paid  them  less  than  ten  cents  on  a dollar,  in  return  for  their 
pro-slavery  riots  and  the  burning  of  Pennsylvania  Hall  1 Such  are  the  gains  of  the 
wicked,  and  such  are  their  friendships  ! Whether  the  Virginian  bankruptcy,  at  the 
time  of  this  reaction,  was  artificial  or  inevitable — a question  once  mooted— the  loss 
to  the  North  was  the  same.  The  treasury  of  the  whole  conspiracy,  indeed,  North- 
ern and  Southern,  was  “ a bag  with  holes,”  as  even  the  Trustees  of  the  Presbyterian 
.Church  found,  to  their  cost.  [See  next  note.] 

t Hereby  hang  some  other  thrilling  item3  of  history.  This  negro  speculation, 
growing  out  of  or  connected  with  a previous  cotton  speculation,  had  its  reaction, 
involving  the  negro  importing  and  negro  raising  States,  together  with  the  principal 
Northern  commercial  and  manufacturing  cities  that  trade  with  the  South,  in  a gen- 
eral and  overwhelming  bankruptcy,  in  which  all  concerned,  except  the  slave  traders, 
shared  together.  The  slave  purchasers  failed,  and  the  slavers  secured  themselves 
by  “ deeds  in  trust  and  mortgages  upon  nearly  the  whole  property  of  the  State  of 
Mississippi.”  (In  other  States,  similar  operations  were  witnessed.)  The  planters 
failed,  the  Southern  banks  failed,  the  Southern  merchants  failed,  their  Philadelphia 
and  New  York  creditors  failed.  New  l'ork  City  alone  lost  about  one  hundred 
millions  of  dollars,  the  little  manufacturing  town  of  Newark,  N.  J.,  five  millions, 
and  so  on  1 Capitalists  all  over  the  country  lost  by  the  Southern  banks,  which  had 
offered  a bribe  of  high  interest  for  funds  wherewith  to  facilitate  this  delectable 
commerce  among  the  several  States !”  Among  the  rest,  and  richly  deserving  it, 
was  “ the  General  Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,"  whose  funds,  to  the 
mount  of  §94,692  83  (a  part  of  it  piously  and  conscientiously  withdrawn  from  the 


250 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


Such  are  a few  specimens  of  the  “ commerce  among  the  several 
States”  which,  by  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States, 
“ Congress  shall  have  power  to  regulate.'’  Not  a little  of  it  was 
carried  on,  under  its  own  eye,  in  the  Federal  District,  the 
slaves  being  brought  in  there  for  sale  and  shipment  from  the 
adjoining  States. 

“Franklin  and  Armfield,  (Alexandria,  D.  C.)  alone , shipped  to  New  Or- 
leans, during  the  year  1835,  according  to  their  own  statement,  not  less  than 
a thousand  slaves.  They  owned  brigs  of  about  160  to  200  tons  burthen, 
running  regularly,  every  thirty  days,  during  the  trading  season,  to  New 
Orleans,  and  carrying  about  one  slave  to  the  ton.” — Sunderland' s A.  S. 
Manual,  p.  112. 

Professor  Andrews,  in  his  work  on  “ the  domestic  slave  trade,”  repeats  a 
conversation  he  had  with  a slave  trader  on  board  a steamboat  in  the  Potomac, 
(1835),  in  which  the  trader  informed  him,  “ children  from  one  to  eighteen 
months  old  are  now  worth  about  one  hundred  dollars.” — Page  147. 

Professor  Dew,  afterward  President  of  William  and  Mary  College,  in  his 
review  of  the  debates  on  slavery  in  the  Virginia  Legislature,  1831— ’2,  speak- 
ing of  the  revenue  arising  from  the  domestic  trade,  says,  “ a full  equivalent 
being  thus  left  in  the  place  of  the  slave,  this  immigration  becomes  an  advan- 
tage to  the  State,  and  does  not  check  the  black  population  as  much  as  at 
first  we  might  imagine,  because  it  furnishes  every  inducement  to  the  master 
to  attend  to  the  negroes,  to  encourage  breeding,  and  to  cause  the  greatest 
number  possible  to  be  raised.  * * Virginia  is  in  fact  a negro-raising 

State  for  other  States.” 

Mr.  Charles  Fenton  Mercer  asserted  in  the  Virginia  Convention,  (1829) : 
“ The  tables  of  the  natural  growth  of  the  slave  population  demonstrate,  when 
compared  with  the  increase  of  its  numbers  in  the  Commonwealth  for  twenty 
years  past,  that  an  annual  revenue  of  not  less  than  a million  and  a half  of 


Sdbbath-breaJcvng  Hackensack  Bridge  Company,  N.  J.),  were  invested  in  the  South- 
Western  banks  engaged  in  this  “ patriarchal ” operation,  which,  on  the  coast  of 
Africa,  would  have  been  11  piracy  !"  The  bottom  line  of  the  loss  of  the  Presbyte- 
rian Church,  in  May  1842,  was  estimated  at  $68,893  88.  The  documentary  state- 
ments may  be  found  in  the  A.  S.  Almanac , New  York,  1846.  It  turns  out  that  this 
“ successful  operation ” “ to  increase  the  revenues  of  the  Church”  had  been  gone  into 
just  before  the  celebrated  Pittsburg  meeting  of  the  General  Assembly,  in  1836,  at 
which  meeting  the  Trustees  reported  their  doings  in  this  matter,  to  the  great  edifica- 
tion of  that  body,  who  must  have  felt  a double  interest  in  the  adoption,  at  that  same 
meeting,  of  Dr.  Miller’s  Report,  and  the  circulation  of  Dr.  Hodge’s  biblical  argu- 
ment, both  iu  favor  of  the  “ peculiar  institution,”  in  which  their  Church  funds  were 
to  be  so  profitably  employed!  Thus  rapidly,  upon  the  heels  of  recreancy, .trode 
retribution  1 Thus  the  Church  guides  the  community,  and  both  fall  into  the  ditch, 
yet  both  grope  on,  in  darkness,  still. 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


251 


dollars  is  derived  from  the  exportation  of  a part  of  this  population.” — De- 
bates, p.  90. 

Mr.  Gholson,  when  in  the  Virginia  Legislature,  18th  January,  1831, 
claimed  the  right  of  “ the  owner  of  brood  mares  to  their  product,  and  of  the 
owner  of  female  slaves  to  their  increase  and  added,  “the  legal  maxim  of 
‘ partus  sequitur  ventrem’  is  coeval  with  the  existence  of  the  right  of  pro- 
perty itself,  and  is  founded  in  wisdom  and  justice.  It  is  on  the  justice  and 
inviolability  of  this  maxim  that  the  master  foregoes  the  service  of  a female 
slave — has  her  nursed  and  attended  during  the  period  of  her  gestation,  and 
raises  the  helpless  infant  offspring.  The  value  of  the  property  justifies  the 
expense  ; and  I do  not  hesitate  to  say  that  in  its  increase  consists  much  of 
our  wealth.”  It  is  no  wonder  this  same  gentleman  was  anxious  for  the  an- 
nexation of  Texas,  declaring  that  “ he  believed  the  acquisition  of  Texas 
would  raise  the  price  of  slaves  fifty  per  cent,  at  least.” 

Hon.  Henry  Clay,  of  Kentucky,  in  1829,  delivered  an  address  before  the 
Kentucky  Colonization  Society.  After  showing  that  when  the  option  ex- 
isted of  employing  free  or  slave  labor,  the  first  was  the  most  profitable,  he 
remarked — “ It  is  believed  that  nowhere  in  th e farming  portion  of  the  United 
States  would  slave  labor  be  generally  employed,  if  the  proprietor  were  not 
tempted  to  raise  slaves  by  the  high  price  of  the  Southern  market , which  keeps 
it  up  in  his  own.” 

We  might  go  into  the  details  of  the  Virginia  trade,  and  show  the  barbari- 
ties and  loss  of  life  which  attend  it,  but  we  forbear,  and  content  ouiSelves 
with  notices  of  two  dealers  in  a single  town  in  South  Carolina.  John 
Wood,  of  Hamburgh  advertised  that  “ he  has  on  hand  a likely  parcel  of  Vir- 
ginia negroes,  and  receives  new  supplies  every  fifteen  days.”  John  Davis, 
of  the  same  place,  advertised  for  sale,  from  Virginia , “ one  hundred  and 
twenty  likely  young  negroes  of  both  sexes,”  and  among  them  “ small  girls 
suitable  for  nurses,  and  several  small  boys  without  their  mothers.”* 

If  any  one  is  disposed  to  doubt  that  this  slave  trade  between 
the  States,  as  well  as  that  from  the  Federal  District,  is  under 
the  control,  regulation,  and  supervision  of  the  Federal  Govern- 
ment, a few  matters  of  fact  will  not  only  settle  that  question, 
out  show  how  this  “ commerce  among  the  several  States”  has 
oeen  hitherto  “ regulated ” and  protected. 

By  act  of  Congress,  March  2,  1807,  Congress  prohibited  the 
coastwise  slave  trade,  in  vessels  of  under  forty  tons  burthen. 
This  exercise  of  the  power  of  prohibition  shows  that  it  exists , 
vnd  that  Congress  is  conscious  of  its  existence.  The  silence  of 


* Communication  signed  A.  B.,  in  National  Era , Aug.  22,  1850. 


252 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


the  slaveholders  and  slave  traders  under  this  exercise  of  thai. 
power  is  a sufficient  evidence  that  they  understood  it  to  be' 
legitimate  and  constitutional.  And,  undoubtedly,  the  authority 
to  prohibit  a traffic,  in  vessels  of  under  forty  tons  burthen,  ini' 
plies  an  authority  to  prohibit  it  in  vessels  of  over  forty  tons 
burthen.  But  this  is  not  all. 

By  the  same  act,  masters  of  vessels,  of  over  forty  tons  bur 
then,  intending  to  transport  slaves,  are  required  to  make  out 
duplicate  manifests  of  their  human  cargoes,  one  of  which  is  tc 
be  deposited  with  the  Collector  of  the  port;  who  is  to  furnish 
ihe  master  with  a “ 'permit''' — “ authorizing  him  to  proceed  ti- 
the port  of  destination  /” — See  Jay's  View , p.  90-91. 

Without  this  “ permit”  “ authorizing ” the  coastwise  slave 
trade,  and  issued  by  an  officer  of  the  United  States,  under  di- 
rections of  a special  act  of  Congress , this  species  of  “ commerce 
amom>-  the  several  States”  cannot  be  carried  on  at  all.  On  the 
arrival  of  the  slaver  to  his  port  of  destination,  he  must  more- 
over, have  another  “ permit”  from  another  United  States’  Col- 
lector, before  he  may  land  a single  slave.  Thus  notoriously 
is  this  detestable  “commerce  among  the  several  States”  di- 
rectly “ authorized”  by  the  National  Congress.  And  if  Con- 
gress wishes  to  discontinue  this  policy,  it  has  only  to  extend 
to  “vessels  of  forty  tons  burthen”  and  upward,  the  prohibition 
of  the  act  of  1807. 

Instead  of  this,  the  National  Government  not  only  “ per- 
mits” and  “ authorizes”  the  American  slave  trade,  but  prosti- 
tutes its  foreign  diplomacy  to  the  shameless  purpose  of  shel- 
tering and  protecting  it.  The  evidences  are  at  hand. 

In  1831  the  brig  Comet,  a regular  slaver  from  the  Federal 
District  for  New  Orleans  was  wrecked  off  the  island  of  Abaco, 
and  the  slaves  carried  into  New  Providence.  In  1833,  the 
brig  Encomium,  a slaver  from  Charleston  for  New  Orleans  was 
also  wrecked  near  the  same  place,  and  the  slaves  carried  into 
the  same  port.  In  1835,  the  Enterprise,  another  slaver  from 
the  District  for  Charleston,  was  driven  into  Bermuda  in  dis- 
tress. In  each  of  these  cases,  the  slaves,  instead  of  being 
accounted  cargoes  of  brute  beasts,  were  regarded  by  the  inhab- 


SLAVERY  AJND  FREEDOM. 


253 


itants  and  the  authorities  of  the  British  provinces  as  passen- 
gers— human  beings — treated  with  hospitality,  and  suffered  to 
go  where  they  pleased.  They  were  free , and  their  pretended 
owners  were  neither  assisted  nor  permitted  to  re-capture  them. 
All  this  was  in  accordance  with  the  usages  of  civilized  nations, 
and  with  that  English  Common  Law  upon  which  our  pilgrim 
fathers  had  reposed,  and  which  they  claimed  as  their  heritage. 
Prompt  measures  were,  however,  taken  by  the  Federal  Gov- 
ernment to  demand  of  the  British  Government  the  market 
value  of  these  cargoes  of  “ Native  Americans  /” 

This  was  under  the  administration  of  Andrew  Jackson. 
Instructions  on  the  subject  to  our  Minister  at  the  Court  of 
St.  James,  were  sent  from  Washington,  in  1831.  Another 
dispatch  was  forwarded  in  1832,  and  a third  in  1833.  Fresh 
instructions  were  sent  in  1834,  1835,  and  1836.  The  claim 
was  importunately  urged  by  the  Secretary  of  State,  in  1832, 
as  a matter  which  “ must  be  brought  to  a conclusion.”  In 
1836,  our  Minister  was  reminded  that  “ in  the  present  state 
af  our  diplomatic  relations  with  the  Government  of  His  Bri- 
;anic  Majesty,  the  most  immediately  pressing  of  the  matters 
with  which  the  United  States  Legation  at  London  is  now 
charged,  is  the  claim  of  certain  American  citizens  against 
Treat  Britain,  for  a number  of  slaves  wrecked  in  British  Isl- 
ands in  the  Atlantic.”  Thus  instructed,  Mr.  Stevenson,  our 
Minister,  in  a communication  to  Lord  Palmerston,  went  so  fai- 
ls to  hint  that  a further  neglect  to  satisfy  this  demand,  might 
‘ possibly  tend  to  disturb  and  weaken  the  kind  and  amicable  rela- 
ions  now  so  happily  subsisting  between  the  two  countries .” 

In  plain  English,  it  might  involve  the  two  nations  in 
war ! 

This  negotiation  was  made  public  by  the  President,  in  re- 
ponse  to  a call  from  the  Senate,  in  Feb.,  1837,  for  “ a copy 
>f  the  correspondence  with  the  Government  of  Great  Britain 
n relation  to  the  outrage  committed  on  our  flag,”  &c.,  “b}r 
sizing  the  slaves  on  board  the  brig  ‘Encomium’  and  ‘Enter- 
>rise,’  engaged  in  the  coasting  trade!”  &c.  &c. — See  Jayls  View , 
>.  58-63. 


254 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


“We,  the  people  of  the  United  States,”  are  thus  made  to 
support  a Minister  in  London,  at  a cost  of  nine  thousand 
dollars  outfit,  and  nine  thousand  per  annum  salary,  to  nego- 
tiate matters,  11  the  most  immediately  pressing  ” of  which  is,  to 
protect  the  American  slave  trade  ! To  do  this  by  demanding 
pay  of  the  British  Government  for  slaves  liberated  by  the 
good  Providence  of  God  ! To  demand  this,  as  if  at  the  point 
of  the  bayonet,  and  with  the  implied  threat  of  war ! 

Who,  then,  is  responsible  for  this  infernal  traffic,  if  not  the 
Federal  administrations  who  carry  on  such  negotiations,  and 
the  people  of  the  free  states  who  sustain  them  in  it  by  their 
votes  ? 

Another  illustration  presents  itself  in  the 

CASE  OF  THE  CREOLE  : 

“Nov.  7,  1841,  the  American  brig  Creole,  bound  from  Richmond,  Va., 
to  New  Orleans,  with  a cargo  of  102  slaves,  was  seized  by  19  of  the  slaves, 
and  carried  into  Nassau,  New  Providence,  one  of  the  British  West  India 
islands.  One  passenger  was  killed,  and  the  captain  and  a few  others 
wounded.  The  whole  affair  was  managed  with  a remarkable  degree  of 
bravery,  discretion,  and  mercy.  Every  movement  indicated  an  earnest 
desire  to  do  as  little  mischief  as  possible,  consistently  with  securing  their 
own  freedom.  The  ring-leader,  a very  large  and  strong  mulatto,  was 
named  Madison  Washington.  He  had  previously  run  away  from  bondage, 
and  staid  in  the  family  of  Hiram  Wilson,  in  Canada.  But  he  grew  home- 
sick for  his  wife,  whom  he  left  a slave  in  Virginia ; and  he  determined  to 
rescue  her  at  all  hazards.  He  went  back  for  this  purpose,  and  was  pro- 
bably caught  by  his  master,  and  sold  to  New  Orleans  as  a punishment.  At 
all  events,  he  was  next  heard  of,  as  the  hero  of  the  Creole.  It  is  believed 
that  his  beloved  wife  was  with  him  on  board  that  vessel.  The  authorities 
of  New  Providence  declared  all  the  slaves  free.  Four  or  five  of  the 
women  (supposed  to  be  mistresses  of  the  white  men),  were  at  first  inclined 
to  go  back  to  the  United  States ; but  when  the  case  had  been  truly  repre- 
sented to  them  by  the  colored  people  of  the  island,  they  took  their  freedom. 

“ Daniel  Webster,  Secretary  of  State,  officially  demanded  of  Great 
Britain  redress  of  these  grievances,  in  a style  which  slaveholders  applauded 
to  the  echo.” — N.Y.  A.S.  Almanac,  1843. 

This  was  under  the  Presidency  of  John  Tyler. 

There  was  still  another  and  a previous  case,  of  a character 
too  unique  to  admit  of  appropriate  classification,  but  which 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


255 


may  as  well  be  related,  in  this  plate,  as  anywhere  else.  The 
readiness  of  the  Federal  Executive  and  other  officers  of  Gov- 
ernment to  subserve  the  interests  of  slavery  in  general,  is  here 
strongly  exhibited,  though,  for  once,  the  Federal  Judiciary 
was  prevailed  upon  to  interpose,  and  prevent  the  consumma- 
tion intended. 

THE  CAPTIVES  OF  THE  AMISTAD. 

“ Nearly  all  these  unfortunate  Africans  came  from  Mendi,  a country  in 
the  latitude  of  the  Gallinas  River,  and  probably  from  three  to  five  hundred 
miles  from  the  -Atlantic  coast.  Their  average  age  was  about  twenty. 
Some  were  as  old  as  thirty ; and  some  as  young  as  eight  or  nine.  They 
were  seized,  and,  with  many  others,  hurried  down  to  the  coast  about  the 
last  of  April,  1839,  and  there,  with  three  or  four  hundred  men  and  boys, 
and  about  two  hundred  women  and  children,  were  put  on  board  a slave  ship 
for  Havana.  After  the  terrible  “ middle  passage,”  placed  between  decks, 
where  the  space  is  less  than  three  feet,  they  arrived  at  Havana.  Here 
they  were  put  into  one  of  the  large  pens,  or  prison-houses,  called  Barra- 
coons,  and  offered  for  sale.  In  a few  days  Joseph  Ruiz  and  Pedro  Montes 
bought  them.  Ruiz  bought  forty-nine,  and  Montes  bought  the  children, 
three  little  girls.  They  put  them  on  board  the  schooner  Amistad,  a coaster, 
for  Puerto  Principe,  Cuba,  a few  hundred  miles  from  Havana.  When  they 
were  two  or  three  days  out,  they  were  beaten  severely,  threatened  with 
death,  &e.  A quarrel  took  place.  The  cook  and  captain  were  killed,  and 
two  sailors  fled  in  a boat.  Cinquez,  the  master-spirit  of  the  whole,  as: 
sumed  the  command.  .He  established  a strict  government  over  his  com- 
rades, and  compelled  Ruiz  and  Montes  to  steer  the  schooner  for  the  rising 
sun — their  own  native  Africa.  They  did  so  by  day,  but  in  the  night  they 
deceived  the  Africans,  and  ran  towards  the  United  States. 

In  this  way  they  arrived  on  the  American  coast,  and  came  to  anchor 
off  Culloden  Point,  Long  Island.  Here  some  of  them  landed,  made  pur- 
chases (paying  for  all  they  took),  and  shipped  water,  intending  to  proceed 
on  their  passage,  but  they  were  taken  possession  of  by  Lieutenant  Gedney, 
of  the  U.S.  brig  Washington,  and  carried  into  New  London,  Conn.  Judge 
Judson  bound  them  over  to  the  Circuit  Court  for  trial,  on  the  charge  of 
murder,  &c. ; but  Judge  Thompson  decided  that  our  courts  have  no 
cognizance  of  offences  committed  on  board  Spanish  vessels  on  the  high 
seas.  As,  however,  the  vessel,  cargo,  and  Africans  had  been  libelled  by 
Gedney  and  others  for  salvage,  it  was  determined  that  a trial  must  take 
place  in  the  District  Court.  It  was  held  in  January,  1840.  Judge  Judson 
decided  that  the  prisoners  were  native  Africans  ; had  never  been  slaves 
legally.  He  dismissed  the  libels  with  costs,  and  decreed  that  the  Africans 


256 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


should  be  delivered  to  the  President  of  the  United  States,  to  be  sent  back 
to  Africa.  But  our  government,  on  the  demand  of  the  Spanish  minister,  ap- 
pealed to  the  Circuit  Court.  This  Court  was  held  in  April,  1840.  Judge 
Thompson  sustained  the  appeal,  and  as  one  party  or  the  other  would  appeal 
to  a higher  tribunal,  whichever  way  he  might  decide,  the  case  went  up  to 
the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  as  a matter  of  form,  for  decision, 
in  January,  1841.  Thus,  these  free  men  were  kept  in  an  American  jail 
eighteen  months  ! 

“ Nine  of  the  Africans  died.  They  were  instructed  daily  by  benevolent 
persons.  They  made  some  progress  in  reading  and  speaking  the  English 
language  ; and  their  conduct  was  very  exemplary.  James  Covey,  a native 
of  Mendi,  providentially  brought  to  this  country,  acted  as  interpreter. 

“ President  Yan  Buren,  at  the  request  of  the  Spanish  minister,  sent  a 
U.S.  ship  to  New  Haven,  to  convey  the  Africans  to  Cuba,  to  be  given  up 
to  the  Spaniards,  in  case  Judge  Judson  had  not  decided  as  he  did.” 

At  the  final  trial  before  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States,  the  Africans  were  released,  and  afterwards  returned  to 
Africa,  in  company  with  Missionaries,  who  went  to  reside 
among  them. 

THE  AFRICAN  SLAVE  TRADE. 

The  Federal  Government  has  neglected  to  take  appropriate 
measures  for  suppressing  the  African  slave  trade,  and  has 
winked  at  the  illegal  introduction  of  slaves  into  this  country. 
Though  the  trade  has  been  interdicted  on  paper,  it  has  been 
permitted  to  continue  in  practice.  While  the  slave  breeding 
states  have,  from  motives  of  interest,  desired  earnestly  the 
non-importation  of  slaves  from  abroad,  the  slave  consuming 
or  planting  states  have,  nevertheless,  persisted  in  the  illicit 
traffic,  and  the  Federal  Government,  with  a full  knowledge 
of  the  fact,  has,  at  times,  winked  at  its  continuance ; and  the 
national  policy,  in  regard  to  the  subject,  has  been  self-contra- 
dictory and  unstable.  In  1811  and  in  1814-,  under  the  Presi. 
dency  of  Mr.  Madison,  in  1817,  in  1818,  and  1819,  under  Mr. 
Monroe,  official  information  of  the  introduction  of  foreign 
slaves  was  in  possession  of  the  Government,  or  the  fact  was 
successively  noticed  by  official  functionaries,  as  Collectors  of 
Customs,  the  Secretary  and  officers  of  the  navy,  Judges  of 
the  Supreme  Court,  the  Attorney  General,  and  Members  of 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


257 


Congress.  Yet,  in  1819,  it  was  certified  by  Joseph  Nourse. 
Register  of  the  Treasury,  that  the  Department  contained  no 
records  of  any  forfeitures  under  the  Act  of  1807  abolishing 
the  slave  trade  ! He  had,  however,  heard  of  two  recent  for- 
feitures. It  turned  out  that  one  of  these  cases  was  an  acci- 
dental capture  of  a slaver,  that  a collusive  or  sham  forfeiture 
of  the  bonds  had  been  enacted,  and  that  the  owners,  master, 
and  supercargo,  were  discharged  ! In  1820,  a slave  vessel,  the 
Science,  fitted  out  from  Hew  York,  and  commanded  by  A. 
Lacoste  of  Charleston,  was  captured  on  the  coast  of  Africa, 
brought  home,  and  Lacoste  convicted  before  Judge  Story,  hut 
pardoned  by  President  Monroe  / — Jay's  View , p.  91-108. 

The  history  of  negotiations  carried  on  between  the  Govern- 
ments of  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain  in  1823  and 
1821,  under  Mr.  Monroe,  in  connection  with  other  facts,  af- 
fords evidence  of  a persevering  and  settled  duplicity,  on  the 
part  of  the  American  Government,  in  regard  to  the  suppres- 
sion of  the  African  Slave  Trade.  By  the  treaty  of  1811,  the 
two  Governments  had  mutually  promised  to  use  their  best  en- 
deavors to  abolish  the  “ traffic  in  slaves."  Mr.  Canning,  British 
Minister  at  Washington,  in  January,  1823,  addressed  a letter 
to  the  Secretary  of  State,  J.  Q.  Adams,  reminding  him  of 
this  treaty,  (which,  by-the-by,  he  had  assisted  to  negotiate,) 
and  calling  on  the  American  Government  to  assent  to  the 
plan  proposed  by  Great  Britain,*  or  suggest  another.  The 
House  of  Representatives,  soon  after,  requested  the  President 
to  negotiate  with  the  maritime  powers  of  Europe  and  America, 
“for  the  effectual  abolition  of  the  African  slave  trade,  and  its 
ultimate  denunciation  as  piracy,  under  the  laics  of  nations  by  con- 
sent of  the  civilized  world."  The  President  adopted  this  as  the 
basis  of  his  proposal  to  Mr.  Canning.  Thus  far  all  seemed 
sufficiently  zealous  and  in  earnest.  But,  mark  the  existing 
circumstances  and  the  final  result : At  this  time  the  British 
law  had  not  made  the  slave  trade  piracy  ; and,  as  it  could  not 

* The  British  Government,  in  1819,  had  proposed  to  our  Government  a mutual 
right  of  search  to  detect  slavers,  with  slaves  actually  on  hoard,  and  a positive  refusal 
to  this  proposal  had  been  returned. 


17 


258 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


be  done  by  treat}*-,  tbe  action  of  Parliament  would  be  needed, 
and  might  long  be  delayed  or  withheld.  The  offer , therefore, 
was  less  hazardous.  But  the  British  Minister  made  no  demur, 
and  proceeded  to  propose  a mutual  right  of  search,  under 
limitations  and  restrictions,  to  detect  slavers.  This  was  the 
practical  point.  But  this  the  American  Government  declined , 
though  Britain,  France,  Spain,  Portugal,  Netherlands,  Den- 
mark, Sweden,  and  Sardinia,  have  come  into  the  measure. 

Yet  the  American  Government  renewed  its  proposition,  by 
authorizing  our  Minister  in  England  to  conclude  a treaty,  on 
condition  of  a legislative  prohibition  of  the  slave  trade  as 
PIRACY.  Great  Britain  took  us  at  our  word,  and  accepted 
the  offer.  The  treaty  was  regularly  drawn  up  and  signed  in 
London,  March  13,  1824,  and  Parliament  passed  a corres- 
ponding Act,  as  our  government  had  required.  The  Senate 
of  the  United  States,  however,  delayed  to  ratify  the  treaty. 
The  British  Minister  at  Washington  remonstrated.  The 
President,  as  in  honor  bound,  urged  the  ratification,  suggest- 
ing, naturally  enough,  that  the  refusal  would  expose  us  to 
“the  charge  of  incincerity  respecting  the  great  result  of  the 
final  suppression  of  the  slave  trade.”  The  Senate,  after  long 
debates,  ratified  the  treaty,  in  a mutilated  form,  adroitly 
striking  out  certain  w'ords,  thus  destroying  its  efficacy,  giving 
full  security  to  slavers  while  on  the  coast  of  “America”  and 
also  to  the  traffic  carried  on  in  “ chartered " or  hired  vessels, 
&c.  &c. ! 

The  British  Cabinet,  of  course,  refused  to  agree  to  a sham 
treaty,  but  made  several  attempts  to  accommodate  or  com- 
promise the  matter,  which  our  Government  promptly  declined. 

Negotiations  have  since  been  renewed,  but  the  final  answer 
of  the  American  Government  (as  we  learn  from  the  Edin- 
burgh Beview  for  1836,)  was,  “ that  under  no  condition , in  no 
form , and  with  no  restriction , will  the  United  States  enter  into  any 
convention , or  treaty , or  combined  efforts  of  any  sort  or  7cind,  with 
other  nations  for  the  suppression  of  this  trade.’' — Jay's  View , pp. 
109  to  118.  Under  whose  administration  this  answer  was 
given,  is  not  stated  ; but  it  was  probably  Gen.  Jackson’s. 


SLAVERY  AMD  FREEDOM. 


259 


A treaty  similar  to  that  formed  in  London,  yet  exempting 
the  coast  of  America  from  its  operation,  had  been  concluded 
with  the  Republic  of  Colombia,  in  1824,  but  rejected  by  the 
United  States  Senate. — lb.  p.  117. 

In  November,  1825,  the  Colombian  Minister  at  Washing- 
ton, while  inviting  the  United  States  to  send  delegates  to  the 
proposed  Congress  of  Panama,  alluded  to  the  suppression  of 
the  African  slave  trade,  as  an  object  deserving  attention  in 
that  Congress.  The  document  was  submitted  to  the  Senate, 
and  a committee  of  that  body  made  a Report,  16th  January, 
1826,  deprecating,  in  strong  terms,  any  interference  with  the 
subject. — lb.  118-119. 

All  this  enables  us  to  appreciate  the  pretense  of  desiring 
to  make  the  African  slave  trade  piracy ! Or,  if  the  Cabinet 
and  House  of  Representatives  Avere  honest  in  that  measure, 
it  betrays  a different  state  of  feeling  in  the  Senate. 

The  zeal  shown  by  the  Government  for  suppressing  the 
African  slave  trade,  and  declaring  it  piracy,  in  1817,  1819, 
1822,  &c.,  has,  however,  a ready  solution.  It  Avas  urged  on 
by  the  Virginia  slave  breeders , intent  upon  monopolizing  the 
market  of  the  planting  states  to  themselves.  “ Piracy  in  Af- 
rica, and  protection  in  America,"1'  Avould  have  been  the  appro- 
priate motto  on  their  escutcheon  ! A protective  tariff,  in  favor 
of  home  products,  of  Avhich  the  prohibitory  tax  was  to  be  the 
halter ! A beautiful  harmony  among  the  successors  of  the 
“ Patriarchs ! ” The  rising  sentiment  of  the  civilized  world 
against,  the  slave  trade , Avas  surreptitiously  subsidized  to  sub- 
serve the  interests  of  the  slave  breeders  for  the  southern 
market  / 

Very  naturally  did  such  a zeal  against  the  African  slave' 
trade  connect  itself  Avith  the  Virginian  project  of  colonizing 
their  free  blacks  in  Africa ! Quite  conveniently  Avere  the 
measures  for  suppressing  the  African  slave  trade  connected 
with  measures,  much  more  efficient,  for  assisting  the  Coloniza- 
tion Society,  and  the  former  made  a cover  and  pretext  for  the 
latter,  at  the  expense  of  the  National  Government,  and  Avith 
the  semblance  of  philanthropy.  But  if  the  Act  making  the 


260 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


slave  trade  piracy,  can  be  readily  harmonized  with  the  policy 
of  Virginia,  it  is  not  as  readily  reconciled  with  the  refusal  of  ■ 
the  Federal  Government,  the  year  previous,  and  ever  after- 
wards, to  co-operate  with  other  nations  in  any  efficient  efforts 
for  suppressing  it. — See  Jay's  View , p.  103-109. 

It  may  be  in  place,  here,  to  note  down  a few  brief  memo- 
randa of  the  Acts  of  the  Federal  Government,  against  the 
foreign  slave  trade. 

By  act  of  1794,  March  22,  Congress  prohibited,  under  for- 
feitures and  fines,  the  building  or  equipping  of  any  vessels  in 
the  United  States,  for  carrying  on  the  traffic  in  slaves  TO  any 
foreign  country. — Inger soil's  Abridgment,  670.  Stroud,  158. 

By  act  of  May  10,  1800,  it  was  made  unlawful  to  be  con- 
cerned or  employed  in  the  transportation  of  slaves  from  one 
foreign  country  to  another , on  pain  of  forfeitures,  fines,  and  im- 
prisonment not  exceeding  two  years. — lb.  672-3.  Stroud, 
158-9. 

By  act  of  February  28,  1803,  Congress,  in  behalf  of  the 
Federal  Government,  co-operated  with  such  of  the  States  as 
had  already  prohibited  the  importation  of  slaves,  assisting 
them  in  carrying  into  effect  such  laws. — Stroud,  159. 

By  act  of  Congress,  March  2, 1807,  the  importation  of  slaves 
from  abroad  was  utterly  prohibited  after  January  1,  1808.* 


* One  provision  of  this  act,  prohibiting  the  transportation  of  slaves  from  one  port 
to  another,  in  certain  vessels,  excited  the  jealousy  of  John  Randolph,  of  Roanoke, 
who,  the  day  after  its  passage,  thought  he  saw  in  it  something  hostile  to  the  domestic 
slave  trade,  and  brought  forward  a supplementary  bill  to  avert  the  danger. 

“ Sir,”  said  he,  “ we  may  say  what  we  please  about  alien  and  sedition  laws,  but 
this  law,  in  my  opinion,  is  the  most  frightful,  the  most  abominable  that  was  ever 
passed  ! If  this  law  went  into  operation,  unless  the  owners  of  slaves  were  asleep, 
protests  would  be  sent  against  it  from  every  State  south  of  the  Potomac.  As  well 
might  they  pass  a law  prohibiting  the  transportation  of  slaves  in  wagons.  He 
doubted  whether  they  would  ever  see  another  Southern  delegate  on  that  floor.  For 
one,  he  had  no  hesitation  in  saying — if  the  Constitution  is  to  be  violated,  if  the 
entering  wedge  is  to  be  driven,  let  us  secede  and  go  home." 

Old  Mr.  Smylie  answered  him  : “ The  gentleman  from  Virginia  says  he  will  not 
trust  Congress,  and  talks  of  the  Southern  States  seceding  from  the  Union.  If  they 
do  not  like  the  Union,  let  them  say  so.  In  the  name  of  God,  let  them  go ; we  can 
do  without  them." 

This  answer  somewhat  cooled  Mr.  Randolph.  “ He  complained  that  he  had  been 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


261 


Judge  Stroud  has  elaborately  and  clearly  pointed  out  the 
discrepancies  of  this  act,  according  to  which,  “ the  negro, 
though  illegally  imported,  yet,  if  so  directed  by  the  State  Leg- 
islatures, he  and  his  offspring  should  he  absolute  slaves."  “The 
Legislature  of  Louisiana  was  not  tardy  in  improving  the  privi- 
leges thus  preposterously  conferred  by  Congress.”  By  act  of 
March  20, 1809,  all  slaves  imported,  in  violation  of  the  act  of  Con- 
gress of  1808,  were  directed  “ to  be  delivered  into  the  hands  of 
the  treasurer  of  the  territory , to  be  afterwards  disposed  of  as  the 
legislature  should  think  proper!” — Stroud , pp.  159 — 162.  1 Mar- 
tins Digest , 661.  “ North  Carolina  and  Georgia,  respectively, 

adopted  a similar  law,  the  former  in  1816. — Hayward's  Man- 
ual, 515  et.  seg : the  latter  in  1817 — Prince's  Digest,  463.”  The 
act  of  Georgia,  however,  authorized  the  Governor  to  hand 
them  over  to  the  Colonization  Society,  on  payment  of  ex- 
penses, &c. ! — Stroud , p.  162. 

By  the  act  of  April  20,  1818,  more  severe  penalties  were 
imposed,  upon  the  prosecution  of  the  slave  trade,  but  “ re- 
enacting  the  odious  sixth  section  of  the  act  of  1807,  and 
recognizing  the  laws  of  the  several  state  legislatures  on  the 
subject,  which  have  just  been  commented  upon.” — Stroud , p. 
163  ; IngersolVs  Abridgment , 680. 

By  act  of  March  2,  1819,  the  President  was  empowered  to 
employ  the  Navy  for  the  suppression  of  the  traffic,  also  to 
provide  for  keeping  and  supporting  the  slaves  re-captured, 
and  remove  them  out  of  the  United  States,  and  finally  repeal- 
ing the  obnoxious  provisions  of  the  former  acts  which  author- 
ized their  enslavement  by  the  state  governments. 

By  act  of  May  15,  1820,  (a  few  weeks  after  the  infamous 
Missouri  compromise,  and  by  the  same  Congress,)  the  African 
slave  trade  was  made  piratical!  “But  laws  do  not  execute 


misrepresented.  He  had  not  threatened  a dissolution  of  the  Union.  However,  he 
said,  if  union  and  manumission  of  slaves  are  put  in  the  scales,  let  union  hick  the 
ieamP 

This  account  is  taken  from  the  Providence  Gazette , of  July,  1820,  now  before  us, 
n which  (during  the  political  contest  in  Rhode  Island,  growing  out  of  the  Missouri 
piestion)  it  was  “ copied  from  a newspaper  printed  in  the  year  1807.” 


262 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


themselves,  and  if  any  slave  trader  has  suffered  death  in  the 
United  States,  as  a pirate,  we  confess  our  ignorance  of  the 
fact.” — Jay's  View , p.  108. 

Notwithstanding  this  repeal,  the  State  of  Alabama,  Jan.  1, 
1823,  passed  “an  act  to  carry  into  effect  the  laws  of  the  United 
States,  prohibiting  the  slave  trade,”  in  which — with  singular 
effrontery — “the  laws  of  the  United  States”  on  the  subject, 
were  grossly  violated,  by  authorizing  the  Governor  to  sell , for 
the  benefit  of  the  state , all  persons  of  color  who  should  he  brought 
into  the  state  contrary  to  the  laics  of  the  United  States  prohibiting 
the  slave  trade  !!  ! — See  Toulman's  Digest,  643;  Stroud,  164. 

“The  laws  of  the  United  States,”  in  accordance  with  the 
Constitution,  are  “ the  supreme  law  of  the  land ; and  the 
judges  in  every  state  shall  be  bound  thereby,  anything  in  the 
Constitution  or  laws  of  any  state  to  the  contrary  notwith- 
standing.”— U.  S.  Constitution,  Art.  V.  And  yet  we  know  of 
no  action  of  the  Federal  authorities,  or  of  the  courts  of  Ala- 
bama, for  setting  aside  this  open  and  flagrant  insult. to  a law 
of  Congress  by  a state  legislature. 

Thus  it  is  that  the  Federal  Government  puts  down  the  Af- 
rican slave  trade  by  calling  it  “ piracy." 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


268 


CHAPTER  XXII. 

FURTHER  ACTION  OF  THE  FEDERAL  GOVERNMENT.— CONTIN- 
UED SUBSERVIENCY  OF  THE  NATIONAL  DIPLOMACY  TO  THE 
DEMANDS  OF  THE  SLAVEHOLDERS. 


Negotiations  with  Great  Britain  and  Mexico  for  the  surrendering  of  fugitive  slaves — 
Compensation  obtained  of  Great  Britain  for  slaves  captured — Negotiations  with 
Spain  and  the  South  American  Republics,  to  prevent  emancipation  in  Cuba — 
Threat  of  preventing  it  by  force  of  arms. 

We  Pave  already  seen  the  corps  diplomatic  employed  at  the 
national  expense  (both  of  money  and  honor)  for  the  protec- 
tion of  the  American  domestic  slave  trade,  and  in  shameful 
evasion  of  the  admitted  obligation  of  assisting  to  suppress 
the  African  slave  trade.  But  this  is  not  the  only  vile  service 
to  which  the  diplomacy  of  the  nation  has  been  subjected  by 
the  slave  power. 

The  Federal  Government  has  negotiated  with  Great  Britain 
and  with  Mexico,  for  the  surrendry  of  fugitive  slaves,  and 
has  actually  obtained  compensation  from  Great  Britain  for 
slaves  captured  in  war,  or  taking  refuge  on  board  their  armed 
vessels. 

During  the  last  British  war,  American  slaves  sometimes 
absconded , and  took  refuge  on  board  the  armed  vessels  of  the 
enemy.  Slaves  were  also  captured,  at  times,  and  carried  off. 
In  negotiating  the  treaty  of  peace,  this  matter  was  not  for- 
gotten. Our  Commissioners  at  Ghent,  (Messrs.  Clay,  Bayard, 
Russell,  Gallatin,  and  John  Quincy  Adams,)  were  carefully 
instructed  by  Mr.  Monroe,  then  Secretary  of  State,  under  Mr. 
Madison,  to  “ insist  ” upon  the  return  of  the  slaves  taken 


264 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


from  the  southern  states,  or  full  payment  for  their  value.  So 
adroitly  did  the  Commissioners  fulfil  their  trust  that  they  not 
only  obtained  compensation  for  the  slaves  captured , but  also, 
(as  ultimately  settled)  for  those  who  had  absconded  to  the  ves- 
sels of  Britain.  The  application  of  the  treaty  to  the  case  of 
the  latter , was  contested  by  the  British  Cabinet.  The  decision 
was  referred  to  the  Emperor  of  Russia,  who,  in  1818,  decided 
in  favor  of  the  American  claim,  which,  at  length,  in  1836, 
was  liquidated,  with  interest,  amounting  to  one  million  two 
hundred  and  four  thousand  dollars. — Jay's  View , pp.  53-58. 

Thus,  though  the  treaty  of  peace  did  not  contain  a sin- 
gle stipulation  for  securing  either  one  of  the  objects  for  which 
America  had  ostensibly  declared  the  war,  (“  free  trade,  sailors’ 
rights,”  &c.,)  yet  it  did  contain  ample  and  even  exorbitant 
remuneration  for  fugitive  slaves.  On  this  issue,  during  the 
negotiation,  was  suspended  the  question  of  peace  or  con- 
tinued war  ! 

Another  negotiation  with  Great  Britain,  concerning  fugi- 
tive slaves,  took  place  under  the  administration  of  John 
Quincy  Adams,  Henry  Clay  being  then  Secretary  of  State, 
and  had  special  reference  to  those  who  had  taken  refuge  in 
Canada.  The  House  of  Representatives,  May  10,  1828, 
requested  the  President  to  open  a negotiation  with  the  Brit- 
ish Government,  for  the  surrendry  of  these  fugitives.  At 
the  next  session,  the  House  called  on  the  President  to  inform 
them  of  the  result.  “The  President  immediately  submitted 
a mass  of  documents  to  the  House,  from  which  it  appeared” 
(says  Mr.  Jay,)  “ that  the  zeal  of  the  Executive  in  behalf 
of  ‘the  peculiar  institution’  had  anticipated  the  wishes  of  the 
Legislature.  Two  years  before  the  interference  of  the  House, 
viz:  on  the  19th  of  June,  1826,  Mr.  Clay,  Secretary  of  State, 
had  instructed  Mr.  Gallatin,  American  minister  in  London, 
to  propose  a stipulation  for  ‘ a mutual  surrendry  of  all  persons 
held  to  service  or  labor,  under  the  laws  of  either  party  who 
escape  into  the  territories  of  the  other.’”  Mr.  Clay  dwelt  on 
the  number  of  fugitive  slaves  in  Canada,  and  suggested  the 
benefits,  to  West  India  planters,  from  such  a stipulation.  In 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


265 


February,  1827,  the  subject  was  again  urged  upon  Mr.  Galla- 
tin, informing  him  that  a similar  treaty  had  just  been  nego- 
tiated with  Mexico.  In  July,  the  British  minister  declined 
the  proposal.  Mr.  Barbour,  the  successor  of  Mr.  Gallatin, 
was  directed  to  renew  the  application.  He  did  so,  but  was 
answered  promptly  by  the  British  minister,  that  the  “ law  of 
Parliament  gave  freedom  to  every  slave  who  effected  his  landing 
on  British  ground."— Jay's  View,  p.  47 — 50.  The  reader  will 
readily  trace  this  “law  of  Parliament”  to  the  decision  of 
Lord  Mansfield  in  the  Somerset  case,  and  to  the  sagacity  and 
perseverance  of  Granville  Sharp. 

As  to  the  treaty  negotiated  with  Mexico,  the  Mexican 
Congress  refused  to  ratify  it.  The  refusal,  as  will  appear  in 
the  sequel,  was  among  the  real  grounds  of  our  quarrel  and 
war  with  Mexico,  but  it  was  not  prudent  to  invade  the  do- 
minions of  Great  Britain. 

The  Federal  Government,  by  its  diplomacy,  has  labored 
effectually  to  prevent  the  abolition  of  slavery  in  the  neigh- 
boring Spanish  Island  of  Cuba,  lest  such  an  occurrence  should 
seriously  affect  the  stability  of  slavery  in  our  own  Southern 
States. 

The  immediate  cause  of  alarm  was  the  war  raging  between 
Spain  and  her  American  Colonies,  and  the  prospect  that  the 
latter  would,  throw  off  the  dominion  of  the  parent  govern- 
ment, as  the  North  American  Colonies  of  Great  Britain  had 
done.  The  ordinary  vicissitudes  of  war  might  emancipate 
the  slaves  of  Cuba,  but  the  danger  was  increased  by  the  fact 
that  the  Spanish  Colonies  on  this  Continent  had  shown  a dis- 
position to  extend  to  all  their  inhabitants,  irrespective  of  color 
or  condition,  the  liberties  for  which  they  were  contending. 
Some  of  them  had  already  abolished  slavery,  and  others  of 
them  were  taking  measures  in  that  direction.  If  Cuba 
should  share  in  the  revolution,  the  Cuban  slaves  would  doubt- 
less become  free. 

Through  the  American  Minister  at  Madrid,  Mr.  Everett, 
the  Spanish  Government  was  accordingly  implored  by  the 
Cabinet  at  Washington  to  become  reconciled  to  the  colonies. 
Could  this  interference  be  traced  to  a love  of  peace,  or  an 


266 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


earnest  desire  for  the  independence  of  Spanish  America,  il 
might  be  regarded  with  admiration.  But  the  instructions  of' 
our  government  to  Mr.  Everett,  by  the  Secretary  of  State, 
Mr.  Clay,  forbid  us  thus  to  interpret  the  proceeding.  “ It  is 
not  for  the  new  Republics,  ” (said  Mr.  Clay  to  Mr.  Everett,)  “thal 
the  President  wishes  you  to  urge  upon  Spain  the  expediency 
of  concluding  the  war.”  He  proceeded  to  hint  at  the  probable 
effects  upon  Porto  Rico  and  Cuba,  intimated  that  the  “ people 
of  the  United  States  could  not  be  indifferent  spectators,”  and 
that  the  possible  contingencies  of  a protracted  war  might  bring 
upon  the  Government  of  the  United  Stales  duties  and  obligations 
the  performance  of  which,  however  painful  it  should  be,  they  might 
not  be  at  liberty  to  decline .” 

In  other  language,  it  would  be  the  duty  of  the  American 
Government  to  prevent  those  islands  from  becoming  the  the- 
atre of  the  war,  even  if  the  effort  should  involve  the  United 
States  in  a war  to  prevent  it ! 

This  letter  was  dated  April  27,  1825.  Of  course  it  was 
under  the  Presidency  of  Mr.  Adams,  and  among  the  earliest  . 
acts  of  his  administration.  The  significancy  of  the  transaction 
is  made,  if  possible,  still  plainer,  by  the  tone  soon  after  held  i 
by  the  administration  towards  our  incipient  sister  republics, 
who,  in  the  enthusiasm  of  their  young  love  of  liberty,  had 
confidingly  invited  us  to  sit  in  council  with  thern,  at  their  pro- 
posed Congress  of  American  Republics  at  Panama ; an  invi- 
tation to  which  the  public  pulse  in  the  United  States — at  least  | 
at  the  North — beat  a hearty  response.  Messrs.  Anderson  and  ■ 
Sargeant  were  appointed  our  Ministers  to  that  Congress.  But  I 
in  his  letter  of  instructions  to  them,  May  8,  1826,  our  Secre- 
tary, Mr.  Clay,  gives  them  to  understand  the  real  object  of 
their  mission  to  that  Congress  of  Freedom.  It  was  rumored, 
and  doubtless  with  good  reason,  that  Colombia  and  Mexico 
meditated  a descent  upon  Cuba,  with  a force  that  should  con- 
fer upon  its  inhabitants  a share  in  the  blessings  they  were 
seeking.  Such  an  enterprise,  however,  the  Government  of  the 
United  States  would  by  no  means  permit.  This  message,  their 
Ministers  at  Panama  were  required  to  convey  to  them.  And 
it  was  given  in  language  sufficiently  explicit  and  peremptory. 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


267 


1 The  United  States,”  (they  were  to  be  told,)  “ have  too  much 
at  stake  in  the  fortunes  of  Cuba  to  allow  them  to  see  a tear  of  inva- 
sion prosecuted  in  a desolating  manner , and  one  race  of  the  in- 
habitants combating  against  another “ The  duty  to  defend 
themselves  against  the  contagion  of  such  a new  and  dangeious  ex- 
ample, would  constrain  them,  even  at  the  hazard  of  losing  the 
friendship  of  Mexico  and  Colombia , to  employ  all  the  means 
necessary  to  their  security.”  _ • 

That  is,  the  United  States  would  sooner  go  to-  war  with 
Colombia  and  Mexico — would  sooner  join  with  despotic  Spain 
in  reducing  them  to  their  former  condition — than  to  stand 
neutral  and  see  the  same  liberation  extended  to  Cuba ! 

Cold  comfort  this  to  the  new  republics  in  our  neighborhood, 
just  throwing  off  the  yoke  of  European  bondage  ! This  was 
the  message  conveyed  them  by  the  administration  of  Mr. 
Adams,  at  a time  when  the  bulk  of  our  northern  citizens  were 
exulting,  in  their  simplicity,  at  the  idea  of  holding  a friendly 
and  fraternal  conference,  at  Panama,  with  our  new  republican 
neighbors.  They  knew,  indeed,  that  certain  southern  mem- 
bers of  Congress  had  blustered  when  the  subject  of  the  mis- 
sion was  under  debate  in  both  Houses,  had  denounced  the 
new  republics  as  “ buccaneers,  drunk  with  their  new-born  lib- 
erty,” because  they  had  abolished  slavery;  even  threatening 
to  prevent  the  liberation  of  Porto  Rico  and  Cuba,  by  force  of 
arms.  But  they  did  not  then  know  that  the  Federal  Execu- 
tive and  Cabinet  were  in  sympathy  with  them. 

The  threat  had  the  desired  effect  upon  Colombia  and  Mexi- 
co; the  enterprise  was  abandoned,  and  Cuba  remains  enslaved! 

The  fears  of  our  Government  were  not,  however,  at  once 
allayed.  The  war  continued,  and  Cuba  might  yet  become 
free.  Mr.  Yan  Buren,  Secretary  of  State  under  President 
Jackson,  on  the  22d  of  October,  1829,  instructed  our  Minister 
at  Madrid,  Mr.  Yan  Hess,  to  press  on  Spain  a termination  of 
the  war.  “ Considerations,”  he  remarked,  “ connected  with  a 
certain  class  of  our  population,  make  it  the  interest  of  the  southern 
section  of  the  Union  that  no  attempt  should  be  made  in  that 
island  to  throw  off  the  yoke  of  Spanish  dependence.” — Jay’s 
View,  p.  120-127. 


268 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


CHAPTER  XXIII. 

FURTHER  ACTION  OF  THE  FEDERAL  GOVERNMENT — HAYTI — 
FLORIDA — THE  SEMINOLE  WAR. 


Non-intercourse  with  Hayti — Refusal  to  acknowledge  its  independence — Invasion  of 
Florida,  while  a Spanish  province,  to  break  up  a fortress  of  fugitive  slaves — 
Threatened  Conquest  of  Florida  by  the  Georgians— Purchase  of  Florida — Florida 
Indians — Seizure  of  Osceola’s  wife,  as  a 6lave — Seminole  War — Indians  hunted 
with  blood-hounds. 


We  are  burthened  with  the  accumulated  instances  and 
modes  in  which  our  Federal  Government  has  sustained  slavery. 
We  cannot  proceed  with  the  minute  details.  We  will  hastily 
advert  to  a few  other  topics. 


TREATMENT  OF  HAYTI. 


The  American  Government  has  manifested  an  inveterate 
and  continual  hostility  to  Hayti,  for  no  reason  but  because 
Hayti  is  an  independent  nation  of  emancipated  slaves.  To 
the  present  hour  we  have  neglected  to  recognize  the  inde- 
pendence of  Hayti,  and  maintain  no  diplomatic  relations  with 
her,  though  our  commercial  intercourse  with  the  island  has 
been  more  important  than  with  several  of  the  European  na- 
tions, with  whom,  at  a great  expense,  we  maintain  such  rela- 
tions. By  this  neglect,  numbers  of  our  citizens  having  claims 
on  the  Haytien  Government  have  been  provided  with  no 
means  of  indemnity.  The  American  Congress,  in  February, 
1806,  during  the  administration  of  Mr.  Jefferson,  suspended 
commercial  intercourse  with  Hayti,  in  servile  obedience  to  the 
arrogant  and  peremptory  demand  of  Napoleon,  who  was  intent 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


269 


on  reducing  the  inhabitants  to  submission,  by  starvation.  At 
the  Congress  of  Panama,  before  mentioned,  our  Ministers 
were  instructed  to  decline  any  recognition  of  Hayti. — Jay's 
View,  pp.  127-144. 

INVASION  OF  FLORIDA  AND  DESTRUCTION  OF  FUGITIVE  SLAVES 
WHILE  FLORIDA  WAS  A SPANISH  PROVINCE. 

This  demonstration  was  made  under  the  administration  of 
Mr.  Madison,  and  in  conformity  with  directions  from  Mr. 
Crawford,  Secretary  of  War,  addressed  to  General  Jackson, 
March  15,  1816.  General  Jackson  had,  however,  anticipated 
these  directions.  The  object,  openly  avowed,  was  to  break 
up  a fort  of  between  250  and  300  blacks,  who,  it  was  said, 
enticed  and  protected  negroes  from  the  frontiers  of  Georgia. 
A gun-boat,  by  order  of  Commodore  Patterson,  fired  upon  the 
fort ; the  magazine  exploded,  and  nearly  three  hundred  In- 
dians and  negroes,  men,  women,  and  children,  were  killed  or 
mortally  wounded. — lb.  p.  50-52. 

PURCHASE  OF  FLORIDA. 

But  the  trouble  did  not  cease.  President  Monroe  was 
harassed  with  numerous  letters  from  slaveholders  in  Georgia, 
declaring  that  their  slaves  were  escaping  continually  into 
Florida,  and  finding  an  asylum  there,*  and  if  the  Province 
was  not  secured  by  treaty,  the  Georgians  would  take  it  by 
force.  These  facts,  according  to  Timothy  Pitkin, f were  stated 
in  a secret  session  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  on  the 
subject  of  the  treaty,  in  1819.  The  treaty  of  purchase  {at 
the  national  expense,  five  millions  of  dollars ) was  concluded  that 
same  year. 


* Though,  slavery  existed  in  Florida,  it  was  of  a much  milder  type  than  that  of 
the  United  States.  Free  colored  people  enjoyed  greater  security,  and  the  country 
afforded  facilities  for  the  secretion  of  fugitives,  or  their  subsistence  in  retreats  of 
difficult  access,  and  among  Indians, 
t Quarterly  A.  S.  Mag.,  Jan.,  1836,  p.  197. 


270 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


THE  SEMINOLE  WAR. 

Florida  was  nevertheless  destined  to  be  the  theatre  of  a 
pro-slavery  Avar,  prosecuted  by  the  government  of  the  United 
States.  The  Seminole  Indians  inhabited  the  marshy  portions 
of  that  country.  Fugitive  slaves  took  refuge  Avith  them,  and 
sometimes  intermarried  among  them.  Osceola,  one  of  their 
chiefs,  became  the  hero  of  a painfully  interesting  tragedy, 
illustrative  of  this  condition  of  things.  The  folloAving  is  from 
an  account  of  him  by  M.  M.  Cohen  : 

“ Osceola,  or  Powell,  as  he  was  called  by  the  whites,  had  a wife  to  Avhom 
he  was  much  attached,  whose  mother  was  a mulatto,  who  ran  away,  was 
adopted  by  the  Indians,  and  married  one  of  their  chiefs.  Though  the 
father  was  free,  yet  the  children,  by  the  law  of  the  South,  take  the  condi- 
tion of  the  mother.  Osceola’s  wife  was  seized  as  a slave  by  ^ person 
claiming  her  under  the  right  of  her  mother’s  former  master  ! The  high 
spirited  husband  attempted  to  defend  her,  but  was  overpowered,  and  put  in 
irons  by  Thompson,  who  commanded  the  party.”  “This  transaction  has 
been  said  to  be  the  origin  of  the  war  in  Florida.” — Quar.  A.  S.  Mas-., 
Vol.  II.,  p.  419. 

• In  this  Avar  Osceola  was  a conspicuous  leader.  He  was 
perfidiously  captured  by  the  American  Generals  Herandez 
and  Jessup,  being  surrounded  by  two  hundred  horsemen 
while  “ holding  a talk,”  or  negotiation,  Avith  his  captors,  in 
October,  1837.  This  was  under  the  administration  of  Presi- 
dent Jackson. 

The  cost  to  the  United  States  of  this  long  protracted  slave 
hunt  (for  it  Avas  nothing  else),  has  been  estimated  at  forty 
millions  of  dollars.  “ "What  has  the  North  to  do  Avith 
slavery  ?” 

In  this  Avar,  the  American  flag  was  disgraced  by  the  impor- 
tation of  blood-hounds  from  Cuba,  and  the  employment  of 
them  in  hunting  doAvn  the  Indians,  by  advice  and  under 
the  direction  of  General  Zachary  Taylor,  whose  services  in 
the  Seminole  and  Mexican  wars — both  for  the  benefit  of 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


271 


slavey — were  rewarded  with,  the  Presidency  of  the  United 
States.  It  is  quite  remarkable  that  many  who  were  loud  in 
their  condemnation  of  the  administration  of  Gen.  Jackson, 
on  account  of  the  use  of  the  blood-hounds,  were  afterwards 
the  zealous  supporters  of  Gen.  Taylor,  the  idol  of  the  South. 
Thus  do  our  parties  bind  us  to  slavery. 


272 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


/ 1 

CHAPTER  XXIV. 

FURTHER  ACTION  OF  THE  FEDERAL  GOVERNMENT — ACQUISI- 
TION OF  TEXAS. 

Slavery  abolished  in  Mexico,  including  Texas — Emigration  of  American  Slaveholders 
and  Slaves  to  Texas — Attempted  seizure  of  Texas  by  Americans  in  1819 — Conspi- 
racy settlers  at  Nacogdoches,  in  1826 — Scheme  to  purchase  Texas,  1827 — Mex- 
ican refusal  to  sell— Texan  Land  Companies  in  the  States — Armed  emigration  to 
revolutionize  Texas— Meetings  of  sympathy  in  the  States — No  Executive  action 
against  it — Standard  of  revolt  raised  in  Texas — Proclamation  of  Independence 
and  re-establishment  of  slavery — Remonstrance  of  the  Mexican  Minister — Men-: 
dacious  reply  of  Mr.  Forsyth — Gen.  Gaines  stationed  near  the  frontier  to  counte- 
nance the  revolters — Battle  of  San  Jacinto — -Defeat  of  Santa  Anna — Acknowledge 
ment  by  the  American  Government  of  Texan  Independence — Proposed  union 
•with  the  States — Various  obstacles  and  delays — Final  admission  of  Texas,  in  1845, 
and  speedy  hostilities  with  Mexico. 

' Texas  was  a province  of  Mexico,  and  Mexico  was  a colony 
of  Spain.  In  the  general  struggle  of  the  Spanish  American 
colonies  to  throw  off  the  Spanish  yoke,  Mexico  took  a part, 
and  asserting  her  independence,  took  measures  in  forming 
her  constitution  of  government,  in  1824,  for  the  prospective 
but  complete  abolition  of  slavery.  Having  achieved  her 
independence,  she  proceeded  to  ’ cut  short  the  tardy  process 
of  gradual  extinction,  by  proclaiming  the  immediate  and 
entire  abolition  of  slavery,  and  the  emancipation  of  all  the 
slaves,  September  15, 1829. "* 

Texas  was  of  course  included,  with  the  rest  of  Mexico, 
under  these  acts.  But  Texas  was  in  process  of  settlement  by 
emigrants  from  our  American  slave  States,  ivlio  had  gone 


Quarterly  A.  S.  May.,  Jan.,  1836,  p.  195;  Jay's  Mexican  War,  p.  12. 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


273 


thither  with  slaves,  and  with  the  view  of  extending  their 
favorite  “institution”  into  that  new  and  fertile  country. 
Lawless  adventurers  from  the  United  States,  under  James 
Long,  had  attempted  the  forcible  seizure  of  Texas  for  this 
purpose,  as  early  as  1819,“  while  the  country  was  a portion 
of  Mexico,  and  under  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Spanish  Govern- 
ment, with  which  we  were  at  peace ; but  the  enterprise  had 
failed.  When  it  was  seen  that  the  young  Mexican  Republic, 
by  its  Constitution  of  1821,  had  provided  for  the  gradual 
extinction  of  slavery,  a body  of  American  settlers,  near 
Nacogdoches,  under  a leader  of  the  name  of  Edwards,  raised 
the  standard  of  insurrection  in  1826,  declaring  Texas  inde- 
pendent, but  were  soon  put  down  by  the  Mexican  forces. 
“ The  united  Provinces  of  Coahuila  and  Texas  formed  one 
State,  and  its  Constitution,  adopted  in  1827,  contained  an 
article  giving  freedom  to  all  who  should  be  hereafter  born, 
and  prohibiting  the  introduction  of  slaves.  ”f 

Such  was  the  position  of  things  in  Texas  when  the  Mexi- 
can proclamation,  of  Sept.  15,  1829,  emancipated  every  slave 
in  the  Mexican  dominions.  This  produced  the  greatest  dis- 
satisfaction among  the  American  emigrants  in  Texas,  and  they 
determined  to  resist  the  execution  of  the  law.  For  this  pur- 
pose, one  of  them  was  deputed  to  the  United  States  to  procure 
arms  and  ammunition.  In  the  distracted  and  feeble  condition 
of  Mexico,  the  new  party  then  just  coming  into  power  felt  it 
oolitic  or  necessary  to  relax  the  decree,  so  far  as  Texas  was 
joncerned,  permitting  a modified  apprenticeship  of  the  eman- 
:ipated  slaves,  but  providing  that  no  indentures  or  contracts 
should  be  valid  for  more  than  ten  years  from  their  respective 
lates.J 

This  relaxation  prevented  an  immediate  rupture,  but  neither 
he  Texan  settlers,  nor  their  friends  in  the  United  States, 
vere  satisfied,  nor  had  they  been  before  the  emancipation 
lecree  had  gone  forth.  The  settlers  wanted  the  unrestricted 


* Jay's  Mexican  War,  p.  12.  t lb. 

t Quarterly  A.  S.  May.,  Jan.,  1836,  p.  195. 

18 


274 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


restoration  and  perpetuity  of  slavery.  Our  slave  consuming 
States  wanted  an  open  field  for  slave  emigration  and  security  • 
from  a free  border  for  fugitives.  Our  slave  breeding  States 
could  brook  no  curtailment  of  their  prospective  privilege  of 
a growing  market.  Texas  must  be  made  slave  territory  at 
all  hazards.  But  the  settlers  were  too  weak  to  resist  success- 
fully the  Mexican  government.  Expeditions  fitted  out  from 
the  United  States,  at  the  expense  of  the  slaveholders , in  1819 
and  in  1826,  had  been  found  insufficient.  What  could  be 
done? 

The  plan  was  soon  (Jeered  upon.  Texas  must  be  pur- . 
chased  of  Mexico,  at  the  expense  of  the  United  States.  The 
Federal  Government  must  do  for  the  slaveholders,  what  they 
could  not  do  for  themselves. 

The  prosecution  of  this  plan  was  attempted  under  the 
administration  of  Mr.  Adams,  Mr.  Clay  being  Secretary  of 
State,  by  whom,  in  March,  1827,  Mr.  Poinsett,  our  Minister 
in  Mexico,  was  instructed  to  offer  one  million  of  dollars  for 
the  purchase.  Under  President  Jackson,  in  1829,  the  bid  was 
raised  to  five  millions,  and  when  the  offer  was  declined,  Mr. 
Poinsett  offered  the  Mexican  government  A loan  of  ten; 
millions,  proposing  to  take  Texas  in  pawn  until  repaid, 
intending,  of  course,  to  get  possession,  stock  it  with  slaves, 
and  keep  it  at  all  events  ! This  offer  was  justly  considered  an 
insult.  This  same  year,  Thomas  H.  Benton,  Judge  Upshur, 
Mr.  Gholson,  and  other  prominent  Southern  statesmen  as  well 
as  editors,  openly  urged  the  necessity  of  acquiring  Texas  as 
a means  of  extending  slavery  and  improving  the  slave  market. 

The  negotiation  was  relinquished  as  a failure.  The  Mexi 
cans  refused  to  dismember  their  republic  by  selling  Texas. 
This,  too,  after  having  also  refused,  in  1827,  as  before  noticed, 
to  stipulate  for  the  surrendry  of  fugitive  slaves.  From  this 
time  it  was  resolved  to  get  Texas  by  force.  If  the  vineyard  of 
Naboth  could  not  be  purchased  from  him  for  money,  he  could 
be  killed,  and  the  field  taken  for  nothing.* 


* 1 Kirigs,  chap.  xxi. 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


275 


Now  came  the  era  of  Texan  land  companies — armaments — 
invasions — insurrections.  Extensive  tracts  of  land,  said  to 
have  been  obtained  bj  grants  from  the  Mexican  government, 
came  into  our  American  market,  and  were  speculated  upon 
by  capitalists,  gamblers,  politicians,  and  demagogues.  These 
purchases  secured  only  a title  to  the  soil,  under  Mexican  juris- 
diction. But  that  which  the  purchasers  were  after  was  slave 
plantations , and  this  end  could  not  be  obtained  without  wrest- 
ing Texas  from  the  jurisdiction  of  Mexico.  Not  a little  of 
this  capital  was  invested  by  citizens'  of  the  non-slaveholding 
states.  Three  of  the  principal  Texan  land  companies  were 
established  in  the  City  of  New  York,  the  scrip  being  of  little 
value  while  Texas  remained  under  the  anti-slavery  laws  of  Mex- 
ico, but  was  expected  to  rise  rapidly  whenever  Texas  became  in- 
dependent. Recruits  of  volunteers  from  the  United  States  were 
it  length  openly  enlisted  for  this  enterprise,  and  proceeded  to 
Texas,  under  popular  military  commanders,  who  publicly  an- 
aounced  their  intentions,  and  advertised  in  the  public  prints 
or  the  number  of  men  they  respectively  wished  to  employ. 
Armed  emigration  was  now  all  the  rage.  Public  meetings  of 
.he  “Friends  of  Texas”  were  advertised  and  held,  at  which 
speeches  were  made  in  favor  of  assisting  the  Texans,  military 
companies  of  emigrants  were  paraded,  and  the  enthusiasm 
’aised  to  a high  pitch.  In  Mississippi,  in  Florida,  in  North 
Carolina,  in  various  parts  of  the  Slave  States,  and  even  in 
Cincinnati,  Ohio,  were  these  scenes  witnessed,  and  arms  and 
immunition  openly  purchased  to  aid  in  these  expeditions. 
In  their  starting  from  their  places  of  rendezvous,  the  Gazettes 
tnd  Journals  of  the  day  exultingly  heralded  their  departure. 

All  this  was  in  flagrant  and  gross  violation  of  our  peaceful 
•elations  with  Mexico,  in  violation  of  the  laws  of  nations,  and 
he  laws  of  the  land,  which  forbid  any  expeditions  against 
lations  with  whom  we  are  at  peace.  Aaron  Burr  had  been 
.rrested  and  tried  for  the  crime  of  attempting  a similar  in- 
rasion  of  Mexico,  in  1807.  Presidents  Washington,  in  1793, 
efferson  in  1806,  Madison  in  1815,  and  Van  Buren  in  1838, 
tad  issued  proclamations  forbidding  our  citizens  to  invade  the 


276 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


provinces  of  other  nations,  or  intermeddle  with  their  internal 
dissensions.  But  no  such  proclamation  was  issued  by  Presi-  ■ 
dent  Jackson  on  this  occasion,  though  no  emergency  more 
loudly  demanding  the  measure  had  ever  before  occurred. 

Under  these  circumstances  it  was,  and  by  these  means,  that 
the  standard  of  revolt  was  raised  in  Texas,  by  the  American 
settlers,  against  the  government  of  Mexico,  which  was,  at  that 
time,  weakened  by  dissensions  at  home.  The  colonists,  in 
1833,  organized  themselves  into  a distinct  and  separate  state, 
preparatory  to  independence,  because  the  people  of  Coahuila, 
with  whom  they  were  associated,  were  not  favorable  to  the 
measure.  Mexico  refused  to  recognize  this  new  organization. 
The  standard  of  open  rebellion  in  Texas  was  then  raised,  the 
small  body  of  Mexican  troops  were  driven  out,  and  “on  the 
2d  of  March,  1836,  the  insurgents  issued  their  declaration  of 
independence,  and  fifteen  days  afterwards  adopted  a constitu- 
tion establishing  perpetual  slavery.”  “Of  the  fifty-seven 
signers  to  this  declaration”  of  independence,  fifty  were  emi- 
grants from  the  slave  states,  and  only  three  Mexicans  by  birth, 
and  these,  it  is  said,  were  largely  interested  in  Texan  land 
speculations.* 

“Nothing,”  says  Mr.  Van  Buren,  “is  more  true  or  more 
extensively  known  than  that  Texas  was  wrested  from  Mexico, 
and  her  independence  established  through  the  instrumentality 
of  citizens  of  the  United  States.”!  Mr.  Clay,  while  the  ques- 
tion of  the  annexation  of  Texas  was  pending,  alluded  to  the 
same  fact  as  a reason  why  our  government  should  not  be 
precipitate  in  that  measure,  in  advance  of  the  recognition  by 
Mexico  herself,  lest  the  civilized  world  should  upbraid  our 
rapacity.  % 

The  Mexican  Minister  at  Washington,  in  the  meantime,  had 
remonstrated  against  these  proceedings.  In  October,  1835,  he 
informed  the  Secretary  of  State  that  large  numbers  of  vessels 
were  about  to  sail  from  New  York  with  military  stores  for  the 


* Jay’s  Mexican  War , p.  22.  + lb. 

t We  state  the  substance  from  memory,  the  speech  not  being  at  hand. 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


277 


insurgents,  and  that  an  armed  schooner  had  sailed  for  Texas 
from  New  Orleans,  without  papers  from  the  Mexican  consul. 
Our  Secretary,  Mr.  Forsyth,  thereupon  addressed  circulars  to 
the  several  District  Attorneys,  directing  them,  in  general  terras , 
to  prosecute  violations  of  treaties  with  foreign  nations,  but  no 
efficient  measures  were  taken,  and  no  offenders  were  punished. 
A District  Attorney  in  Ohio,  soon  after,  made  an  address  at  a 
Texan  meeting,  in  favor  of  assisting  the  Texans  ! To  a second 
remonstrance  of  the  Mexican  Minister,  Mr.  Forsyth  very  coolly 
and  mendaciously  replied  that  the  Government  had  done  all 
in  its  power  to  prevent  interference ! 

A few  days  before  this  assurance,  General  Gaines  was  di- 
rected by  the  President  to  take  a position  near  the  frontier, 
ostensibly  to  prevent  the  contending  parties  from  entering  our 
territory , of  which  there  was  no  danger.  He  was  not  directed 
to  prevent  regiments  raised  in  the  United  States  from  invading 
Texas ! Under  pretense  of  defending  our  frontiers,  he  next 
marched  his  troops  into  Texas,  against  the  remonstrances  of 
the  Mexican  Minister,  with  the  evident  object  of  affording 
countenance  to  the  insurgents,  and,  if  necessary,  assist  them 
against  the  Mexican  forces,  under  pretense  of  defending  our 
frontier.  Some  hundreds  of  his  soldiers  deserted  and  joined 
the  Texans.  There  they  remained  and  served  while  they  were 
wanted.  General  Gaines  then  offered  them  a full  pardon  on 
condition  of  their  return. 

Thus  encouraged  and  aided,  the  Texans,  or  rather  the 
American  armed  emigrants,  fought  the  decisive  battle  of  San 
Jacinto,  and  defeated  Santa  Anna,  in  May,  1836.  The  intelli- 
gence was  transmitted  to  our  American  President , Jackson,  by 
he  American  General , Gaines,  who  indulged  the  anticipation 
hat,  in  consequence  of  the  victory,  “ this  magnificent  ac- 
quisition to  our  Union  ” would  grace  his  administration. — 
day’s  Mexican  War,  p.  30. 

And  all  this  is  said  to  have  been  done  without  violating 
)ur  relations  of  peace  with  Mexico ! 

On  the  opening  of  Congress  in  December,  1836,  President 
fackson  recommended  a prudent  delay  in  acknowledging  the 


278 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


independence  of  Texas,  till  “ the  lapse  of  time  or  the  course  of 
events"  should  have  proved  her  ability  to  maintain  her  posi-: 
tion.  This  proved  to  have  been  a ruse  to  allay  the  fears  of 
the  friends  of  freedom.  Not  long  after,  the  President  urged 
Congress  to  put  at  his  disposal  a naval  force  to  act  against 
Mexico  in  case  she  failed  to  make  prompt  arrangements  for 
satisfying  our  pecuniary  claims  against  her.  With  such  a 
force  he  could  easily  get  into  a war  with  Mexico,  and  then 
“ the  course  of  events  ” would  soon  lead  to  the  acknowledgment 
of  Texan  independence.  “ This  proposition  was  coldly  re- 
ceived.” “ The  session  was  to  close  the  third  of  March,  1837.”. 
By  the  most  dexterous  management  of  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives, and  the  concurrence  of  the  Senate,  near  the  close 
of  the  session,  the  independence  of  Texas  was  acknowledged, 
and  a salary  provided  a Minister  to  the  new  nation  ! A Min- 
ister was  immediately  nominated  by  the  President,  and  con- 
firmed by  the  Senate,  the  last  day  of  that  administration. — 
Jay’s  View,  p.  153. 

Nothing  was  now  wanting  to  complete  the  drama  of  Texas, 
but  her  admission  into  the  Union.  The  strong  opposition, 
at  the  North,  against  this  measure,  delayed  it  for  about  eight 
years,  and  until  near  the  close  of  Mr.  Tyler's  administration, 
ill  March,  1845. 

The  Texan  Congress  took  measures,  as  early  as  1836,  (be- 
fore our  government  had  acknowledged  their  independence,) 
for  proposing  a union  with  the  United  States,  but  on  the  ex- 
press condition  of  the  “ free  and  unmolested  authority 
OVER  their  slave  population."  In  1837  the  negotiation  was 
opened  by  the  Texan  Minister  at  Washington.  Mr.  Yau 
Buren  prudently  declined  on  the  ground  that  the  United 
States  were,  at  present,  at  peace  with  Mexico,  and  that  powei 
had  not  acknowledged  the  independence  of  Texas.  As  the 
excitement  against  annexation  increased  in  the  free  States,  the 
proposition  of  Texas  was  formally  withdrawn,  and  the  appre- 
hension of  annexation  was,  by  this  movement,  allayed. 

In  the  mean  time,  the  emigration  to  Texas  from  the  free 
States  began  to  alarm  the  guardians  of  slavery.  In  1842  the 


SLAVERY  AMD  FREEDOM.  279 

ex-President  of  Texas,  General  Lamar,  addressed  a letter  to 
his  friends  in  Georgia,  urging  the  necessity  of  annexation,  lest 
the  anti-slavery  party  in  Texas  should  change  the  Constitution, 
and  abolish  slavey.  He  added  that  though  the  anti-slavery 
party  were  now  a minority,  yet  the  majority  of  the  people  of 
Texas  were  not  slaveholders.  The  clamor  of  the  South  for 
annexation  was  now  revived.  A false  alarm,  without  the 
least  shadow  of  foundation,  was  got  up,  that  England  intended 
in  some  way,  to  interfere  in  the  affairs  of  Texas,  and  insist  on 
the  abolition  of  slavery.  The  British  Government  disclaimed 
any  such  intention.*  Yet  President  Tyler  negotiated  with 
Texas  a treaty  of  annexation,  in  the  face  of  earnest  remon- 
strances from  the  Mexican  Minister  at  Washington,  and  the 
instrument  was  signed  by  the  Secretary  of  State,  Mr.  Calhoun. 
The  Senate  of  the  United  States,  however,  refused  its  ratifica- 
tion of  the  treat}r.  This  was  in  April,  1844,  and  it  was  not 
until  March  1st,  1845,  just  before  the  close  of  Mr.  Tyler’s  ad- 
ministration, that  the  measure  was  carried  by  joint  resolution 
of  both  Houses  of  Congress,  after  a severe  struggle,  and  in  di- 
rect violation  of  the  Federal  Constitution,  which  invests  the 
treaty-making  power  in  the  President  and  Senate.  Texas 
assented  July  4th,  and  was  formally  received  the  22d  of  De- 
cember. 

Hostilities  with  Mexico  soon  followed ; but  we  must,  in  a 
way  of  digression,  go  back  and  give  some  account  of  an  at- 
tempt of  the  slaveholders  upon  that  country,  about  forty  years 
previous. 

* Mr.  Calhoun,  while  Secretary  of  State,  in  April,  1844,  officially  declared,  in  a 
letter  to  the  American  Agent  at  Mexico,  that  the  annexation  of  Texas  had  been 
“forced  on  the  Government  of  the  United  States  in  self-defense,  in  consequence  of 
; the  policy  adopted  by  Great  Britain  in  reference  to  the  abolition  of  slavery  in  Texas." 

The  accusation  was  false — the  confession  was  true.  Slavery  was  at  the  bottom  of 
the  matter.  Eight  years  before  this  (May  27,  1836),  long  before  there  was  any  pre- 
tense of  British  interference,  Mr.  Calhoun  had  said  in  the  Senate,  “ There  are  power- 
ful reasons  why  Texas  should  be  a part  of  this  Union.  The  Southern  States,  owning 
a slave  population , were  deeply  interested  in  preventing  that  country  from  having 
the  power  to  annoy  them.”  On  the  19th  of  February,  1847,  General  Houston, 
under  whose  directions  the  treaty  between  Texas  and  Mexico  had  been  negotiated, 
declared,  in  the  Senate,  “England  never  proposed  the  subject  of  slavery  or  of  abo- 
lition, to  Texas.” 


280 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


CHAPTER  XXV. 

CONSPIRACY  FOR  THE  CONQUEST  OF  MEXICO  AND  THE  DISRUP- 
TURE  OF  THE  FEDERAL  UNION  IN  1806 — CONTROLLING  POW- 

■ 

ER  OF  THE  CONSPIRATORS  OVER  THE  FEDERAL  JUDICIARY. 

Arrest  of  Colonel  Aaron  Burr,  1807 — His  previous  history — Detection  of  the  plot  by 
Gen.  Wm.  Eaton — Sketch  of  his  history — Object  of  the  conspiracy — A South-  ! 
Western  Empire,  including  slaveholding  Mexico  and  the  American  slave  States — 
Extent  and  power  of  the  conspiracy — Prominent  men — Trial  of  Burr — Sympathy 
of  the  South — Arts  successfully  employed  for  his  acquittal. 

We  shall  venture  to  fix  here  an  earlier  date  than  is  com- 
monly given,  to  the  machinations  and  attempts  of  prominent 
citizens,  statesmen,  capitalists,  and  military  men,  chiefly, 
(though  not  exclusively,)  of  the  South  and  Southwest,  for  the 
conquest  or  dismemberment  of  Mexico,  and  with  a special 
vi.ew  to  the  security  and  expansion  of  the  slave  system.  The 
time,  we  think,  has  now  fully  come,  when,  upon  a full  review 
of  the  past,  connecting  nearer  and  more  familiar  events  with 
those  more  remote  and  obscure,  and  reading  the  more  distant 
in  the  light  of  the  more  recent,  we  may  better  understand  the 
secret  springs  of  certain  movements  which  caused  no  little  ex- 
citement and  surprise,  in  their  day,  presenting  a riddle  which 
few  Northern  statesmen  then  on  the  stage  appeared  fully  to 
comprehend. 

The  arrest  and  trial  of  Col.  Aaron  Burr,  under  Mr.  Jeffer- 
son’s administration,  in  1807,  fills  a brief  paragraph  or  two 
in  our  popular  histories.  But  a well-digested  manual  and 
review  of  the  facts  that  came  out  on  the  trial,  and  that  occu- 
pied the  political  journals  of  that  day,  could  they  now  be  col- 
lected and  published,  would  make  a thrilling  and  highly 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM.  281 

instructive  volume.  The  details  were  altogether  astound- 
ing. 

Colonel  Burr,  as  a politician,  as  a statesman,  and  as  a mili- 
tary man,  held  rank  among  the  first  men  of  the  country.  As 
a competitor  with  Mr.  Jefferson  for  the  Presidency,  he  received 
from  the  people  precisely  the  same  number  of  electoral  votes. 
In  the  House  of  Representatives,  in  1801,  it  required  thirty- 
five  ballotings  to  decide  between  the  two,  when  a change  of 
one  vote  resulted  in  the  election  of  Mr.  Jefferson  ; but,  as  the 
Constitution  then  stood,  Colonel  Burr  was,  of  course,  invested 
with  the  Yice-Presidency  for  four  years.* 

The  sudden  arrest  of  so  prominent  a statesman  for  high 
treason,  and  in  a time  of  general  quiet,  was  like  a clap  of 
thunder  out  of  a clear  sky.  It  produced  a sensation  the  most 
profound  and  extensive.  Except  for  his  slaughter  of  Gen. 
Alexander  Hamilton,  in  a duel,  in  July,  1804,  Col.  Burr, 
though  of  loose  private  morals,  had  stood  before  the  country 
in  general,  unsuspected  of  crime.  The  occasion  of  the  duel 
was  this : Col.  Burr,  having  «been  supplanted  in  the  affec- 
tions of  the  democratic  party  by  his  only  rival,  Mr.  Jeffer- 
son, became  cool  in  his  party  attachments,  and  was  appa- 
rently in  the  attitude  of  changing  sides.  At  this  crisis,  a 
Dortion  of  the  Federal  party  in  the  State  of  New  York  pro 
oosed  him  as  their  candidate  for  Governor.  Gen.  Hamilton, 
is  a leading  member  of  that  party,  strongly  opposed  the 
Domination,  denouncing  Col.  Burr  as  an  unprincipled  aspirant 
md  “ dangerous  to  the  country .”  Col.  Burr  sent  him  a chal- 
enge,  which  Gen.  Hamilton  accepted,  and  fell.  His  strong 
leclaration  concerning  Col.  Burr  excited  wonder  at  that  time, 
Dut  it  was  afterwards  conjectured  that  he  entertained  secret 
suspicions,  or  had  received  intimations,  of  his  treasonable 
lesigns.  It  appeared  at  the  trial,  and  afterwards,  that  Burr 
lad  made  secret  overtures  to  several  prominent  men  who  had 


* Willson's  American  History , p.  443.  The  votes  were  given  only  for  a President, 
nd  after  electing  the  President,  the  candidate  having  the  next  greatest  number  of 
•otes  was  Vice-President. 


282 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


declined  co-operation  with  him,  but  who  had  considered  them- 
selves bound  by  Masonic  obligations  or  otherwise  to  observe- 
silence.  He  had  carried  on  a very  extensive  correspondence 
in  “the  Cypher  of  the  Eoyal  Arch  Masons,”  and  it  was  be- 
lieved, during  and  after  the  trial,  that  his  connection  with 
that  fraternity  did  much  to  shield  and  acquit  him. 

Be  this  as  it  may,  to  Gen.  William  Eaton,  of  Massachu- 
setts, was  reserved  the  honor  of  detecting  the  dangerous 
conspiracy,  and  lodging  information  with  the  Government. 
Gen.  Eaton  had  been  American  Consul  at  Tunis,  during  our 
war  with  the  piratical  Barbary  powers,  and  had  concerted 
with  Hamet,  the  legitimate  but  exiled  sovereign  of  Tripoli, 
'an  expedition  against  the  usurper  who  had  dethroned  him, 
and  with  whom  this  country  was  at  war.  Communicating 
this  project  to  his  Governnent,  and  obtaining  due  authority 
from  it,  he  had  embarked  in  the  perilous  expedition  with  a 
few  followers  of  Hamet  and  some  Egyptian  troops.  He  had 
marched,  with  incredible  fatigue  and  suffering,  over  a desert 
of  a thousand  miles  in  extent?  had  taken  Derne,  a Tripolitan 
eity,  by  assault,  had  fought  two  battles  with  the  reigning 
Bashaw,  and  had  obtained  terms  of  peace  which  had  been 
accepted  by  our  agent,  Mr.  Lear,  thus  suddenly  and  success- 
fully closing  our  long  and  expensive  naval  war  of  five  years 
in  the  Mediterranean.*  He  returned  to  America,  the  military 
idol  of  his  times.  The  whole  northern  country  was  resound- 
ing with  his  exploits  against  the  barbarians  who  had  captured 
and  enslaved  so  many  American  citizens!  But  Gen.  Eaton  was 
a New  Englander  and  a Federalist.  The  South  could  never 
permit  such  an  one  to  wear  military  laurels.  Worse  than 
all  this — Gen.  Eaton,  while  residing  at  Tunis,  had  written 
letters  home  to  his  wife,  which  had,  somehow,  appeared  in 
print,  in  which  he  described  the  horrors  of  Tunisian  sla- 
very, but  had  declared,  that  he  blushed  at  the  remembrance 
of  having  witnessed  worse  scenes  in  his  own  country  !f  This 


* Willson's  American  History , pp.  444-5. 
t Liberty  Beil , p.  33. 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


283 


sealed  the  fate  of  Gen.  Eaton.  Not  only  was  he  coldly  re- 
ceived at  the  seat  of  Government,  but  the  most  mean  and 
frivolous  cavils  were  raised  and  charges  preferred  against  him. 
His  accounts  of  necessary  expenditures  were  disputed  and 
disallowed,  reducing  him  to  bankruptcy,  and  attempts  were 
made  to  cashier  and  disgrace  him.  Triumphantly  vindicating 
himself,  at  every  point,  but  literally  plundered  by  his  Gov- 
ernment, he  retired,  in  deep  disgust,  from  its  service,  carrying 
with  him  the  sympathies  of  his  New  England  fellow-citizens, 
who  found  in  his  wrongs,  fresh  aliment  for  their  hatred  of 
Mr.  Jefferson  and  his  administration. 

Then  it  was  that  Col.  Burr  conceived  the  idea  of  adding 
Gen.  Eaton  to  the  long  list  of  his  military  adventurers,  and 
approached  him  accordingly.  But  he  mistook  his  man.  The 
General  listened  silently  till  he  had  unfolded  the  whole 
scheme.  A new  Southern  and  Western  Empire  was  to  he  estab- 
lished, with  New  Orleans  for  its  capital , and  extending , if  possible, 
over  Mexico.  The  extreme  Southern  with  the  South  Western 
States  were  confidently  calculated  upon  to  oppose  no  serious 
obstacle  to  the  measure,  and  in  fact,  to  come  into  it,  quite 
greedily.  As  many  of  the  southern  states  as  possible  were 
to  be  drawn  into  it.  To  the  question,  what  disposition  was 
to  be  made  of  the  existing  Federal  Government,  the  ready 
answer  was,  “ They  can  probably  be  managed  easily  enough, 
but  if  not,  we  will  assassinate  the  President,  and  turn  Con- 
gress, neck  and  heels,  into  the  Potomac.”  General  Eaton  de- 
clined the  overture,  and,  nobly  forgetting  his  own  personal 
grievances,  lost  no  time  in  communicating  the  particulars  to 
the  Government  that  had  wronged  him.  Col.  Burr  and  several 
others  were  arrested.  Col.  Burr  was  charged,  first,  with  high 
treason ; second,  with  a high  misdemeanor , in  attempting  an 
invasion  of  Mexico,  a province  of  Spain.  The  single  testimony 
of  Gen.  Eaton  was  thought  sufficient  to  have  convicted  him, 
but  it  was  only  a tithe  of  what  could  be  brought  forward. 
So  extensive  and  so  powerful  was  the  conspiracy  found  to  be, 
and  so  wide-spread  appeared  to  be  the  sympathy  of  the  South 
with  the  prisoners,  that  it  was  feared,  at  one  time  during  the 


284 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


trial,  that,  whether  the  arraigned  were  condemned  or  acquit-, 
ted,  the  enterprise  would  in  some  way  be  resumed.  It  was' 
currently  understood  that  prominent  men  at  the  South,  who 
were  as  deeply  implicated  as  Col.  Burr,  and  who  were,  in  fact, 
the  originators  of  the  plot,  were  not  arrested  because  it  was 
not  deemed  prudent  to  proceed  further.  Among  other  rumors, 
one  was,  that  Col.  Burr  was  about  to  turn  States’  evidence 
against  some  of  them,  to  procure  indemnity  for  himself.  But 
the  matter  appears  to  have  been  compounded  more  easily.* 
Quite  evident  it  was  that  the  northern  states  were  mainly 
depended  upon  to  sustain  the  Government,  at  that  crisis,- 
though  nearly  all  the  political  opposition  to  the  administration 
was  northern.  Except  Col.  Burr,  few  northern  citizens,  we 
believe,  were  implicated,  or  even  suspected  of  being  in  the 
conspiracy.  Whoever  succeeds  in  ferreting  out  the  names  of 
the  prominent  southern  men  implicated  or  falling  under  strong 
suspicion  at  that  period,  need  not  be  surprised  to  meet  with 


* The  arts  employed  to  shield  the  accused  from  conviction,  are  quite  apparent 
even  upon  a cursory  glance  at  the  records  of  the  trial.  The  indictment  was  so 
drawn  up  as  to  charge  him  only  with  treasonable  acts  or  misdemeanors  committed 
by  him  on  Blennerhassett’s  Island,  in  the  river  Ohio,  the  residence  of  one  of  his  - 
accomplices,  while  the  great  mass  of  the  evidence  in  the  hands  of  the  prosecuting 
attorney  had  respect  to  acts  committed  elsewhere!  By  this  barefaced  fraud,  “al- 
most all  the  important  testimony  was  excluded  by  the  court  from  coming  before  the 
Jury."  The  testimony  of  Blenuerhasset  was  rejected  likewise.  So  well  was  this 
stratagem  understood  by  the  Jury,  that  after  retiring,  for  a short  time,  they  returned 
with  the  following  written  verdict,  read  by  Col.  Carrington,  their  foreman  : 

“ We,  of  the  Jury,  say  that  Aaron  Burr  is  not  proved  guilty  under  this  indictment, 
by  any  evidence  submitted  to  ns.  We,  therefore,  find  him  not  guilty.” 

Exceptions  were  taken  to  this  verdict,  that  it  was  unusual,  and  that  it  seemed  to 
“ censure  the  Court  for  suppressing  irrelevant  testimony."  The  Jurors,  however, 
“ would  not  agree  to  alter  it."  “ The  Court  then  decided  that  the  verdict  should 
remain  as  found  by  the  Jury,  and  that  an  entry  should  be  made  on  the  record  of 
Not  guilty."  — Burr's  Trial , reported  by  David  Robertson,  Esq.,  Counsellor-at- 
Law.  Philadelphia:  Hopkins  and  Earle,  1808.  Vol.  II.,  pp.  446-7. 

The  writer  well  remembers  the  prevailing  pnblic  impression  at  the  North.  The 
feeble  efforts  of  the  prosecution,  the  evident  bias  of  the  Court,  and  the  apparent 
apathy  of  the  Executive,  suggested  the  suspicion  that  the  matter  was  better  under- 
stood at  the  South  than  at  the  North,  and  that  the  Administration  had  either 
favored  the  project,  and  did  not  wish,  or  did  not  dare,  to  press  the  prosecutions 
with  vigor.  Partisan  feelings  may  have  entered  into  these  suspicions,  hut  they  were 
extensively  entertained. 


SLAVERY  AATD  FREEDOM. 


285 


several  names  that  have  appeared  among  the  advocates  of 
forcible  pro-slavery  extension,  since.  The  writer  will  not  trust 
his  youthful  reminiscences  further  than  to  say,  that  the  name 
of  Andrew  Jaclcson , in  1807,  was  pretty  familiarly  coupled,  in 
the  public  prints,  with  that  of  Aaron  Barr , and  that  the  cir- 
cumstance was  again  freely  alluded  to  by  thejpolitical  opponents 
of  Gen.  Jackson,  who  were  supporters  of  William  II.  Crawford, 
at  the  South,  during  the  Presidential  canvass  of  1821.  It  was 
a Georgia  Editor,  if  we  remember  correctly,  who  spoke  of  it 
is  though  it  were  a fact  well  understood,  that  Jackson  was  an 
accomplice  of  Burr. 

The  acquittal  of  Col.  Burr  astonished  the  people  of  the 
North,  little  less  than  did  his  arrest.  The  secret  was  not  un- 
derstood. So  overwhelming  was  the  public  condemnation  of 
Burr,  notwithstanding  his  judicial  acquittal,  that,  with  all  his 
?asy  and  graceful  assurance,  he  could  never  again  lift  up  his 
bead  in  American  society.  He  soon  left  the  country,  and 
was,  for  years,  a voluntary  exile,  in  different  countries  of  Eu- 
rope. He  seems  to  have  hoped,  at  first,  that  the  verdict  of 
iis  acquittal  would  have  been  his  passport  abroad.  But  it  was 
lot  so.  The  facts  elicited  at  the  trial  had  preceded  or  soon 
followed  him.  With  a polish  and  fascination  of  manners  that 
would  have  graced  any  royal  court,  with  talents  that  would 
lave  rendered  him  an  acquisition  to  any  European  cabinet, 
with  an  energy  of  action  that  might  have  made  him  the  adt- 
niration  of  a Napoleon,  he  sought  employment  in  vain.  He 
,ued  for  a military  post  under  the  French  Emperor,  but  was 
epulsed.  Obscurity,  thenceforward,  was  the  doom  of  Aaron 
3urr.  He  returned  to  the  city  of  New  York,  and  earned  his 
mead,  till  his  death,  at  an  advanced  age,  by  the  labors  of  a 
:ounsellor-at-law  and  a draftsman  of  legal  instruments,  with- 
out ever  again  appearing  as  a barrister  in  a court  of  justice, 
le  was  a disgraced  man.  If  the  Federal  Judiciary  could  save 
!iis  neck,  it  could  not  save  his  good  name.  A free  people  had 
.ssumed  to  act  as  a jury  in  the  case,  and  the  decision  could 
Lot  be  reversed. 

That  the  Federal  Courts  could  not  convict  a traitor,  whose 


286 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


treason  consisted  in  fealty  to  the  Genius  of  slavery  extension , is 
a phenomenon  not  very  difficult  of  explanation,  now.  Nor  ' 
need  the  secret  spring  of  the  Burr  conspiracy  be  a problem 
of  wearisome  conjecture.  At  a time  when  the  expected  pro- 
hibition of  the  Foreign  Slave  trade  was  approaching,  the 
natural  instincts  of  the  southern  country,  as  since  exhibited, 
must  have  impelled,  with'  almost  resistless  energy,  the  appe- 
tency for  western  expansion.  The  purchase  of  Louisiana, 
about  the  same  period,  was  only  another  symptom  of  the 
same  insatiable  thirst.  Whether  the  acquisition  of  Louisiana 
were  cause  or  effect  of  the  great  Southern  Conspiracy  that 
exploded  in  1807,  or  which  of  them,  in  reality , was  in  progress 
first,  or  whether  the  purchase  was  not  designed  to  satisfy  the 
conspirators,  it  might  be  difficult,  at  this  distance  of  time,  to 
determine.  That  there  was  a close  affinity  between  them,  no 
one  can  deny.  The  taste  of  Louisiana  would  as  naturally 
whet  the  appetite  for  Mexico,  then , as  did  the  taste  of  Texas 
the  appetite  for  California,  more  recently. 

Not  more  truly  characteristic  was  the  acquittal  of  Burr, 
than  the  significant  silence  observed  respecting  the  conspiracy 
ever  since.  The  suspected  treason  pf  the  Hartford  Convention 
has  swollen  into  volumes.  The  taint  of  affinity  with  it  is 
fatal.  The  orator’s  tongue  never  tires  in  execrations  of  it. 
But  the  great  Southern  conspiracy  (for  such  it  was,  though 
with  a Northern  accomplice)  is  seldom  mentioned,  and  history 
almost  passes  it  over  in  silence.  High  time  were  it  to  restore 
that  long  suppressed  chapter,  and  let  posterity  know  that 
but  for  the  fidelity  of  Gen.  William  Eaton,  of  Massachu- 
setts, “our  glorious  Union”  would  probably  have  been 
shivered  to  atoms  by  the  slaveholders,  in  the  year  1807,  with- 
out even  a show  of  resistance  at  the  South. 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


287 


CHAPTER  XXYI. 

FURTHER  ACTION  OF  THE  FEDERAL  GOVERNMENT — THE  WAR 

WITH  MEXICO — ACQUISITION  OF  CALIFORNIA,  NEW  MEXICO, 

AND  UTAH. 

’he  project  of  Mexican  Conquest  never  relinquished  since  1807 — Suspension  of 
effort  till  1S19 — War  of  1848 — Its  causes — Federal  Government  Lent  on  a Con- 
quest or  Dismemberment  of  Mexico — Testimony  on  this  point — Review  of  relations 
with  Mexico  since  1836 — Unreasonable  and  fraudulent  claims  of  our  Government 
— Insolent  demands — Territory  wanted,  not  money — Naval  armament — Com, 
Jones — His  Annexation  of  California  by  proclamation,  in  1841 — Its  failure — 
Attempts  to  intimidate  Mexico,  and  to  provoke  a War — Demand  that  she  should 
acknowledge  the  Independence  of  Texas — Negotiations  for  territory — Their  failure 
— War  determined  on,  and  commenced — False  claim  of  boundary  of  Texas — Gen. 
Taylor  ordered  to  occupy  Mexican  territory — Manoeuvres  to  provoke  hostilities — 
Their  failure — The  first  blow  struck  by  Gen.  Taylor— False  announcement  to  Con- 
gress by  the  President— Corresponding  declaration  by  Congress,  May  11,  1846- 
Prosecution  of  the  War — Adventure  of  Col.  Fremont — Testimony  that  it  was  a 
War  of  Conquest — Barbarities  and  depredations — Subserviency  of  Congress — 
President’s  request  for  money  to  purchase  Territory — Wilmot  Proviso  twice  passed 
in  the  House — Defeated  in  the  Senate — Then  lost  in  the  House — Negotiations  with 
Mexico  for  Territory — Offered  on  condition  of  excluding  Slavery — Offer  rejected — 
Final  adjustment — Cost  of  acquired  Territory. 

THE  LATE  WAR  WITH  MEXICO. 

The  detection  and  exposure  of  the  great  Southern  con- 
piracy  against  the  Federal  Union  and  against  Mexico,  though 
c interposed  a temporary  check  on  the  enterprise,  removed 
either  the  cause  nor  the  disposition  that  had  engendered  it. 
’here  is  not  the  slightest  reason  to  suppose  that  the  purpose 
f invading  and  conquering  Mexico  was  ever  for  one  moment 
dinquished.  From  the  trial  and  acquittal  of  Aaron  Burr, 
l 1807,  to  the  actual  beginning  of  military  excursions  into 
’exas,  then  a province  of  Mexico,  in  1819,  as  already  related, 
iere  was  an  interval  of  only  twelve  years , less  time  than  could 


288 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


have  been  supposed  needful  to  allay  public  apprehension,  to 
divert  attention  to  other  topics,  to  draw  the  veil  of  oblivion  • 
over  the  past,  to  transfer  the  odium  of  incipient  treason  from 
the  South  to  the  North,  to  place  the  Slave  Power  on  a high 
ground  above  Free  Labor,  to  organize  the  conspiracy  anew, 
and  to  subsidize  the  Federal  Government  itself  for  the  accom- 
plishment of  its  objects,  instead  of  attempting  again  its  direct 
overthrow. 

How  effectively  those  twelve  years  were  thus  occupied,  the 
■history  of  the  country  will  show.  A glimpse  of  it  we  may 
take  before  long;  but  will  first  follow  out  the  Mexican  drama, 
to  its  close. 

The  annexation  of  Texas,  while  she  was  at  war  with  Mex- 
ico, was  equivalent  to  a declaration  of  war  against  the  latter. 
But  Mexico  was  not  in  a position  to  wage  war  against  us  ; and 
had  the  Slave  Power,  that  controls  the  Federal  Government 
at  its  pleasure,  been  satisfied  with  the  acquisition  of  Texas, 
our  amicable  relations  with  Mexico,  if  not  undisturbed,  might 
have  been  easily  restored.  Indeed,  there  were  no  actual  hos- 
tilities between  the  two  republics  until  the  invasion  of  Mexico, 
in  the  summer  of  1845,  by  the  American  forces,  by  direction 
of  President  Polk,  and  without  authority  from  Congress. 

■ In  his  “ Review  of  the  Mexican  War,”  Mr.  Jay  has  clearly 
and  conclusively  shown  that  the  Federal  Government,  not 
content  to  wink  at  and  even  encourage  and  aid  the  lawless 
invasion  and  revolution  of  Texas,  to  acknowledge  its  inde- 
pendence, and  to  annex  it  to  this  country,  was  resolutely  bent 
upon  a still  farther  dismemberment  of  Mexico,  either  by  pur- 
chase or  conquest. 

So  early  as  April,  1842,  Mr.  Wise,  of  Virginia,  in  a speech 
in  Congress,  openly  avowed  the  policy  of  conquest,  and  pre- 
dicted its  accomplishment,  for  the  purpose  of  extending 
slavery.  He  boasted  that  it  was  the  people  of  our  own  West- 
ern Valley  that  had  conquered  Santa  Anna  at  San  Jacinto.  H( 
gloried  in  the  prospect  that  they  would  join  the  Texans  anc 
proclaim  a crusade  against  the  rich  States  of  the  South,  “ cap 
ture  towns,  rifle  churches,”  and  “ plant  the  lone  star  of  th< 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


289 


Texan  banner  on  the  Mexican  capital.”  “ Let  the  work  once 
begin”  (said  Mr.  Wise),  “ and  I do  not  know  as  this  house 
would  hold  me  very  long.  Give  me  five  millions  of  dollars, 
and  I would  undertake  to  do  it  myself” — “ 1 would  place 
California  where  all  the  powers  of  Great  Britain  would  never 
be  able  to  reach  it.  Slavery  should  pour  itself  abroad, 
AND  FIND  NO  LIMIT  BUT  THE  SOUTHERN  OCEAN.”  “War 
is  a curse,  but  it  has  its  blessings  too.  I would  vote  for  this 
mission”  [of  Waddy  Thompson  to  Mexico],  “as  a means  of 
preserving  peace,  but  if  it  must  lead  to  war,  I would  vote  for 
it  more  willingly.” 

This  was  under  the  administration  of  President  Tyler,  of 
whose  policy  Mr.  Wise  was  the  recognized  leader  in  the  House 
of  Representatives.  The  real  object  of  Mr.  ^Thompson’s  mis- 
sion, as  disclosed  by  his  course  and  the  results,  fully  justified 
the  foreshadowings  of  this  speech.  Mr.  Tyler  showed  his 
affinity  with  Mr.  Wise,  by  appointing  him  Minister  to  France. 
But  the  effort  to  get  into  a war  with  Mexico  was  of  a still 
earlier  date  than  this. 

OUR  CLAIMS  UPON  MEXICO. 

The  only  ostensible  cause  of  complaint  against  Mexico,  was 
;he  claims  of  certain  American  citizens  for  depredations  com- 
mitted on  their  property  by  Mexicans,  or  by  subordinate 
officials  of  the  Mexican  government.  Mr.  Jay  has  thoroughly 
lifted  these  claims,  and  shown  that  they  constituted  no  just 
ground  or  necessity  of  war. 

The  first  claim,  in  July,  1836,  under  President  Jackson, 
consisted  of  fifteen  distinct  specifications  of  alleged  facts, 
requiring  time  for  their  proper  investigation.  Of  the  exist- 
ence of  many  of  them,  the  Mexican  Government  may  well  be 
supposed  to  have  been  wholly  ignorant,  as  they  claimed  to 
rave  been,  until  the  complaint  was  presented.  Yet  the  Amer- 
.can  Minister,  Mr.  Ellis,  was  directed  to  obtain  a satisfactory 
mswer  within  three  weeks , or  announce  that,  unless  satisfac- 
tion was  made  without  unnecessary  delay,  his  further  resi- 
lence would  be  useless.  If  this  threat  proved  unavailing,  he 

19 


290 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


was  to  give  notice  that,  unless  he  received  a satisfactory  answer 
in  two  weeks,  he  should  demand  his  passports  and  return- 
home.  Mr.  Ellis  was  a Mississippi  slaveholder,  eager  to 
extend  the  area  of  slavery  by  a dismemberment  of  Mexico. 
Another  remarkable  feature  of  this  demand  was,  that  Mr. 
Ellis  was  informed  by  our  government  that  it  was  not  in  pos- 
session of  “the  proof  of  all  the  circumstances  of  the  wrong 
done  in  the  above  cases !”  The  reparation  was  to  be  demanded 
first,  under  a threat  of  war,  and  the  justice  of  the  claim 
ascertained  afterwards!  Mr.  Ellis  was  to  be  sole  judge  whe- 
ther there  was  “ unnecessary  delay,  ” and  whether  the  answers 
were  “satisfactory.”  The  alleged  aggressions  were  mostly  of 
recent  date.  Similar  claims  on  France  and  England  had  been 
matter  of  negotiation  for  ten  or  twenty  years,  without  a threat 
of  war,  but  Mexico  was  required  to  finish  up  the  whole  busi- 
ness in  five  loeeks  ! Before  Mr.  Secretary  Forsyth’s  dispatches 
reached  Mr.  Ellis,  two  out  of  the  fifteen  wrongs  had  been  set- 
tled to  the  satisfaction  of  the  parties,  and  many  of  the  remain- 
der were  proper  subjects  of  investigation  in  the  Mexican 
courts,  to  which,  by  treaty,  our  citizens  had  access,  as  theii 
citizens  had  to  ours.  Of  this  the  Mexican  Secretary  reminded 
Mr.  Ellis,  but  promptly  proceeded,  nevertheless,  to  an  investi- 
gation of  the  claims.  Mr.  Ellis  thought  proper  to  add  five 
more  complaints,  without  waiting  for  any  directions  from  hit 
Government.  These,  added  to  the  thirteen  remaining  origina' 
ones,  made  the  number  eighteen.  In  respect  to  each  of  these 
the  Mexican  government  returned  suitable  explanations  anc 
assurances  within  the  time  specified.  Some  of  them  were 
shown  to  be  unfounded.  Others  of  them  required  proof 
Others  required  further  time  for  investigation.  Others  of 
them  having  been  investigated,  and  being  found  just,  the 
claimants  should  be  compensated.  Others  of  them  were 
under  litigation,  and  the  results  would  soon  be  ascertained 
In  one  case,  an  American  vessel  had  been  seized  by  the 
custom-house  officers  and  condemned  for  want  of  the  prope 
papers,  but  an  appeal  having  been  taken  to  a higher  court 
before  whom  the  missing  papers  were  produced,  the  vesse 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


291 


had  been  discharged.  The  detention  was  not  the  fault  of  the 
Mexican  officers,  but  of  the  master  of  the  vessel,  in  losing 
his  papers.  In  every  case  the  answer  appeared  to  be  fair  and 
reasonable.  Mr.  Ellis,  nevertheless,  as  had  been  determined 
beforehand,  demanded  his  passports  and  returned  home,  refu- 
sing to  give  the  Mexican  Government  a reason  for  so  extra- 
ordinary a course.  And  on  his  return  home  the  country  was 
made  to  ring’  with  the  falsehood  that  Mexico  had  refused  to 
pay  our  just  demands  ! 

The  Mexican  Minister,  in  the  meantime,  had  left  Washing- 
ton, on  account  of  the  march  of  American  troops  into  Texas, 
as  before  related.  All  diplomatic  relations  between  the  two 
republics  were  thus  suspended.  American  troops  were  in  a 
province  claimed  by  Mexico,  and  the  wishes  of  the  adminis- 
tration seemed  about  to  be  realized.  Accordingly  in  Feb., 
1837,  President  Jackson,  in  a message  to  Congress  on  the 
claims  against  Mexico,  requested  an  act  passed  authorizing 
reprisals,  and  the  use  of  a naval  force  of  the  United  States 
for  that  purpose,  unless  an  amicable  adjustment  could  be 
made,  upon  another  demand,  to  he  made  on  board  one  of  our 
vessels  of  war  on  the  coast  of  Mexico! 

The  President  evidently  intended  war.  Indeed  his  mes- 
sage affirmed,  distinctly,  that  these  injuries  justified  an  “ im- 
mediate war.”  But,  in  a semi-official  letter  to  Governor 
Cannon  of  Tennessee,  only  six  months  before,  which  had 
somehow  got  into  print,  he  had  distinctly  said  “ It  does  hot 
seem  that  offenses  of  this  character”  (i.  e.  such  as  would  jus- 
tify war)  “ have  been  committed  by  Mexico.” 

But,  thanks  (under  God)  to  the  little  band  of  northern  agi- 
tators against  slavery,  the  people  of  the  North  were  not  yet 
prepared  for  such  a measure,  and  the  war  proposition  of  Presi- 
dent Jackson  received  little  favor  by  their  representatives  in 
Congress.  There  needed  new  machinations  and  a more  favor- 
able opportunity,  before  the  desired  result  could  be  reached. 

The  treaty  between  the  two  countries  forbade  any  act  of 
reprisal,  by  either  party,  on  account  of  grievances  or  damages 
until  they  had  been  “ verified  by  competent  proof,  ” and  until 


292 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


the  demand  for  satisfaction  “refused,  or  unreasonably  de- 
layed.” We  have  seen  that  the  eighteen  complaints  against 
Mexico  had  not  been  thus  verified,  nor  had  the  demand  for 
satisfaction  been  “refused  or  unreasonably  delayed.”  Yet 
the  President,  as  we  have  seen,  desired  authority  to  make 
“reprisals”  unless  prompt  reparation  should  be  made,  on  a re- 
newal of  the  demand  from  on  board  one  of  our  armed  vessels 
on  the  coast  of  Mexico.  And  in  making  this  request,  he  laid 
before  Congress  a list  of  grievances  amounting  to  forty-six, 
making  twenty-eight  new  cases  that  had  never  been  presented 
to  the  Mexican  Government  at  all ! Some  of  these  additional 
claims — strange  to  tell — dated  back  as  far  as  1816  and  1817, 
when  Mexico  was  a province  of  Spain  ! And  some  of  them 
were  claims  for  insurrectionary  services  against  the  Spanish 
Government ! 

Mr.  Ellis  was  then  re-appointed  Minister  to  Mexico,  but  he 
remained  at  home,  and  a courier  was  dispatched  with  the  bud- 
get of  grievances,  with  an  allowance  of  one  week  to  examine 
and  determine  upon  them  all.  By  incredible  zeal  and  indus- 
try, the  list  of  grievances  was  now  swelled  to  fifty-seven. 
This  was  in  July,  1837,  under  the  administration  of  Mr.  Yan 
Buren.  Many  of  these  demands,  as  Mr.  Jay  well  observes, 
and  has  clearly  shown,  “ were  in  the  highest  degree  insolent 
and  ridiculous.” 

The  messenger  to  Mexico  tarried  his  uone  week1’  and  re- 
turned. But  before  the  list  of  these  fifty-seven  grievances 
reached  Mexico,  the  Mexican  Government,  intent  upon  an 
equitable  settlement  of  all  the  difficulties  it  had  heard  any- 
thing about,  viz. : the  eighteen  specifications  made  by  Mr. 
Ellis,  had  passed  an  act  offering  to  submit  to  the  award  of  a 
friendly  power,  the  claims  of  the  United  States.  In  the  same 
peaceful  spirit,  another  Mexican  Minister  was  sent  to  Wash- 
ington, and  the  arbitration  proposed,  in  December,  1837. 

The  warlike  designs  of  the  Federal  Administration  were 
thus  again  baffled.  The  offer  was  too  fair  to  be  rejected,  in 
the  face  of  the  nation  and  the  world,  yet  for  four  months  no 
notice  was  taken  of  it,  but  the  new  claims  were  three  times 


SLAVERY  AMD  FREEDOM. 


293 


distinctly  urged  by  our  Secretary,  Mr.  Forsyth.  Not  until 
the  offer  had  become  public,  and  Congress  plied  with  northern 
petitions  to  accept  it,  and  remonstrances  against  the  annexa- 
tion of  Texas,  was  the  overture  heeded,  and  negotiations 
commenced.  At  length  an  arrangement  was  made,  by  which 
the  claims  were  to  be  presented  to  Commissioners  to  sit  at 
Washington,  two  to  be  appointed  by  each  party;  the  board 
to  sit  not  more  than  eighteen  months,  the  decision  of  cases 
by  it  to  be  final,  and  the  cases  on  which  they  could  not  agree, 
to  be  determined  by  an  umpire  to  be  named  by  the  King  of 
Prussia. 

Here,  then,  were  allowed  eighteen  months  to  go  through  with 
an  investigation  which  Mexico  had  been  required  to  complete 

in  three  weeks! 

After  many  delays,  the  Commission  assembled  two  years 
after  their  appointment,  giving  ample  time  for  all  the  claim 
ants  to  collect  their  evidences. 

After  sitting  nine  months,  they  passed  upon  all  the  claims 
that  had  sufficient  vouchers ; but,  in  order  to  give  further 
time  for  collecting  evidence,  the  Commission  was  kept  open 
the  remaining  nine  months,  when  it  was  dissolved.  The 
King  of  Prussia  named  as  umpire  his  Minister  at  Washing- 


ton,  Baron  Roenne.  Now  notice  the  result. 
The  total  amount  of  claims  presented  was 

$11,850,578 

But  of  these  there  came,  in  the  last  nine 
months , too  late  to  be  examined,  and  evi- 
dently of  a speculative  and  fraudulent 
character, 

3,336,837 

Thus  reducing  the  amount  to 

$8,513,741 

Referred  to  Umpire,  and  undecided  by  him 
for  want  of  time,  ..... 

928,627 

Amount  of  Claims  adjudicated,  . 

$7,585,114 

Rejected  by  Commissioners  and  Umpire, 

5,568,975 

Allowed  “ “ “ 

*2,016,139 

See  Jay's  Mexican  War,  p.  70.  The  bottom  line  (allowed)  is  there  stated 


294 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


Just  look  at  it ! Our  government  had  been  demanding  of 
Mexico  nearly  twelve  millions  of  dollars,  had  demanded  a prompt 
settlement  on  pain  of  “reprisals”  and  war.  And  here,  after 
the  most  laborious  investigation,  and  giving  ample  time,  twice 
over,  for  proving  the  claims,  they  are  dwindled  down  to  a 
little  over  two  millions , not  much  more  than  one-sixth  part 
of  the  claim.  It  is  true  that  only  about  seven  and  a half 
millions  were  acted  upon  ; but  this  was  the  fault  of  the  claim- 
ants, if  they  had  any  valid  evidences  to  bring  forward.  Again, 
of  the  claims  brought  forward  in  season  and  investigated, 
viz.  : about  seven  and  a half  millions,  only  about  anefourtli  was 
adjudged  to  be  due. 

The  award  of  over  two  millions  remained  unpaid,  in  conse- 
quence of  the  pecuniary  embarrassments  of  the  Mexican  trea- 
sury. Adding  to  this  the  amount  of  claims  that  had  not  been 
adjudicated,  the  Federal  Government  was  furnished  with  an- 
other opportunity  of  urging  its  claims  upon  Mexico.  Another 
arbitration  treaty  was  negotiated  ; the  commissioners,  for  this 
time,  were  to  sit  in  Mexico,  and  Mexican  citizens  having 
claims  against  the  United  States  were  also  to  have  an  oppor- 
tunity of  presenting  their  claims  for  adjudication.  One  feature 
of  the  treaty  was  to  change  the  mode  of  payment  by  Mexico, 
from  the  tender  of  her  depreciated  treasury  notes  to  specie 
payments  in  instalments — an  object  of  great  importance  to 
our  government.  And  yet,  the  United  States  Senate  virtually 
rejected  the  treaty,  by  changing  the  place  of  adjudication 
from  Mexico  to  Washington,  and  striking  out  the  clause  refer- 
ring the  Mexican  claims  on  the  United  States  to  the  tribunal 
of  arbitration.  Thus  mutilated,  and  divested  of  its  reciprocal 
character,  the  treaty  was  returned  to  Mexico,  where  no  further 
notice  was  taken  of  it. 

So  much  for  our  claims  against  Mexico.  Except  for  delay 
of  payment  growing  out  of  its  poverty,  it  does  not  appear  that 
there  was  any  backwardness  on  the  part  of  the  Mexican  Gov- 


2, 026, 236,  which  does  not  agree  with  the  arithmetical  subtraction,  owing  probably 
to  a misprint. 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


295 


eminent  to  do  all  that  could  reasonably  be  asked  at  its  hands. 
And  this  is  the  sum  total  of  all  our  causes  of  war  against 
Mexico — a war  for  the  collection  of  a debt  of  about  two  mil- 
lions, and  a pretended  debt  of  about  five  or  six  millions  more,* 
the  proper  adjustment  of  which  had  never  been  refused  or 
needlessly  delayed.  And  this  debt  was  collected,  by  the  war 
process,  at  an  expense  of  above  one  hundred  millions  of  dol- 
lars! 

It  was  territory,  not  money,  that  the  Federal  Government 
wanted  of  Mexico,  and  territory  for  the  extension  of  slavery. 
Every  step  in  the  entire  process  affords  evidence  of  this. 

Under  the  administration  of  Mr.  Tyler,  in  December,  1841, 
Mr.  Upshur,  Secretary  of  the  Navy,  made  a report,  recom- 
mending the  employment  of  a naval  force  in  the  Pacific,  on 
the  coast  of  California,  to  protect  “a  considerable  settlement 
of  Americans”  in  Upper  California,  to  explore  the  Gulf  of 
California,  &c.  A few  days  after,  Commodore  Jones,  a Vir- 
ginian, was  dispatched  with  a squadron  accordingly,  where  he 
arrived  in  1842.  On  receiving  a newspaper  report  that  Mexi- 
co had  ceded  California  to  England — one  of  the  lying  rumors 
of  the  day,  for  effect — learning,  likewise  from  the  Mexican 
papers  that  the  government  of  that  country  had  protested 
against  American  interference  with  Texas,  and  suspecting  that 
a British  naval  force  then  in  the  Pacific  was  about  to  seize 
upon  California,  Com.  Jones,  on  consultation  with  his  officers, 
assumed  the  responsibility  of  taking  possession  of  Monterey 
in  California.  He  had  brought  with  him,  either  from  the 
United  States  or  from  Callao,  a supply  of  printed  proclamations, 
in  the  Spanish  language,  claiming  the  people  “henceforth  and 
forever  " as  citizens  under  the  protection  of  the  American  flag. 

The  day  after  distributing  his  proclamation,  the  Commodore 
discovered  his  mistake.  The  report  was  a fabrication.  The 
fruit  was  not  yet  ripe.  He  apologized  to  the  Mexican  authori- 
ties of  Monterey,  and  withdrew.  The  Federal  Government 
was  obliged  to  disavow  the  act,  but  “in  vain  was  his  punish- 


Tke  reader  will  find  evidences  of  the  character  of  these  claims  as  we  proceed. 


296 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


ment  demanded  by  Mexico.”  He  was  too  faithful  a represen- 
tative of  his  government  to  fall  under  its  censures.  He  had' 
only  mistaken  the  time  to  strike. 

The  refusal  of  Mexico  to  acknowledge  the  independence  of 
Texas  was  an  obstacle,  in  the  minds  of  the  Northern  people, 
to  the  annexation  of  the  latter,  and  hence  the  Senate,  as  we 
have  seen,  had  refused  the  ratification  of  Messrs.  Tyler  and 
Calhoun’s  treaty  for  that  object.  The  next  step  was  to  intimi- 
date Mexico  into  a recognition  of  Texan  independence.  Ac- 
cordingly, in  October,  1844,  our  Minister  to  Mexico,  Mr.  Shan- 
non, in  conformity  with  his  instructions,  presented  an  insolent, 
remonstrance  on  that  subject.  In  reference  to  a projected 
attempt  of  Mexico  to  reduce  her  refractory  province,  Mr.  Shan- 
non represented  the  importance  of  Texas  to  this  country,  and 
intimated  that  his  Government  could  not  see  it  invaded,  with 
out  taking  part  in  the  controversju  The  Mexican  Minister 
replied  that  his  government  was  not  capable  of  yielding  to  a 
menace  which  the  President  of  the  United  States,  “ exceeding 
the  powers  given  to  him  by  the  fundamental  law  of  his  nation,  has 
directed  against  it.” 

He  added : 

“ While  one  power  is  seeking  more  ground  to  stain  by  the  slavery  of  an 
unfortunate  branch  of  the  human  family,  the  other  is  endeavoring,  by  pre- 
serving what  belongs  to  it,  to  diminish  the  surface  which  the  former  wants 
for  this  detestable  traffic.  Let  the  world  now  say  which  of  the  two  has  jus- 
tice and  reason  on  its  side.” 

Mr.  Shannon  demanded  a retraction  of  this  language.  The 
Mexican  Government  nobly  refused  to  retract,  but  repeated 
it.  And  President  Tyler  laitl  the  correspondence  before  Con- 
gress, complaining  of  the  language  of  the  Mexican  Govern- 
ment as  an  affront,  that  “ might  well  justify  the  United  States 
in  a resort  to  any  measure  to  vindicate  the  national  honor.” 
He  contented  himself,  however,  with  urging  “ prompt  and 
immediate  action  on  the  subject  of  annexation.” 

The  successful  annexation  of  Texas  in  1845,  encouraged  the 
slaveholding  party  in  Congress  to  broach,  openly,  the  project 
of  entering  into  negotiations  for  the  cession  of  Cuba.  Their 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


297 


papers  began  also  to  dwell  on  the  importance  of  adding  Cali- 
fornia to  the  United  States,  and  President  Polk  was  evidently 
determined  to  obtain  that  province,  either  by  negotiation  or 
war.  A new  bluster  was  made  about  our  claims  upon  Mexi- 
co, and  Mr.  Slidell  was  dispatched  on  a mission  to  that  Gov- 
irnment  to  make  an  offer  for  New  Mexico  and  California.  He 
was  to  offer  the  claims  and  five  millions  for  New  Mexico,  and 
,he  claims  and  twenty-five  millions  for  both  New  Mexico  and 
California. 

To  facilitate  this  land  speculation,  “ the  claims  ” were  conve- 
liently  swelled  to  upwards  of  eight  millions,  although  Mexico 
lad  paid  the  interest  of  the  award,  and  above  three  hundred 
housand  dollars  of  the  principal,  by  forced  loans,  and  not- 
withstanding her  financial  embarrassments,  so  anxious  was  she 
o retain  her  relations  of  peace  with  this  country. 


The  award  under  the  treaty,  as  before  stated, 
was  above  - 

Claims  then  unsettled  were  above 
New  claims  presented,  above 

Amount  due  (after  deducting  payments)  about 


|2,000,000 

4.000. 000 

2.000. 000 

$8,000,000 


Let  it  now  be  remembered  that  the  previous 
claim  of  our  Government  upon  Mexico 
was  nearly  - - - $12,000,000 

Add  to  this,  the  new  claims  afterwards  fabrica- 
ted as  above,  - - - 2,000,000 


Total  claim  from  Mexico,  - $14,000,000 


How  much  ought  to  have  been  claimed  the  reader  will  judge 
hen  he  sees,  not  only  (as  already  exhibited)  the  amount  of 
love  five  and  a half  millions  rejected  by  the  Commissioners 
id  Umpire,  but  when  he  sees,  likewise,  how  the  whole  mat- 
r was  settled  when  Mexico  was  afterwards  dismembered  by 
lr  forces,  when  we  had  her  in  our  power,  and  when  we  had 
otained  all  the  slave  territory  we  wanted  ! We  could  afford 
be  honest  then,  in  respect  to  these  claims.  In  the  final  set- 


298 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


tlement,  at  the  close  of  the  war,  the  award  of  the  Commis 
sioners  was  put  down  at  two  millions  of  dollars,  and  th< 
remainder  of  the  claim,  above  six  millions,  was  put  down  a 
only  three  and  A quarter  millions,  the  Federal  Governmen 
stipulating  to  pay  the  claimants  all  “valid  claims”  not  exceed 
ing  the  latter  sum,  yet  releasing  the  Mexican  Governmen 
from  further  responsibility  ! Thus  our  Government  itself  re 
pudiated  above  three  millions.  But  this  is  not  all.  As  five 
sevenths  of  the  claims  investigated  were  found  spurious,  am 
as  the  claims  presented  later  were  evidently  of  a still  wors 
character,  it  is  calculated  by  Judge  Jay,  who  has  presents, 
and  studied  these  statistics,  that  “ one  million  will  be  mor 
than  sufficient  to  meet  every  equitable  demand,”  that  is  (a 
we  understand  it)  in  addition  to  the  award  of  two  millions 
thus  reducing  the  fourteen  millions  claimed,  to  three  mi 
lions,  and  repudiating  eleven  millions  of  it  as  spurious  !- 
Jay's  Mexican  War , p.  118. 

Such  were  “ the  claims  ” of  which  eight  millions  were  1 
be  used  as  purchase  money  to  obtain  California  and  Ne" 
Mexico,  through  the  mission  of  Mr.  Slidell.  In  his  persoi 
the  American  Government  presented  itself  before  Mexico  i 
the  character  of  an  importunate  creditor  demanding  more  that 
'double  his  just  due,  with  a bowie  knife  in  one  hand  and 
purse,  with  his  bill,  in  the  other.  Now,  sa}rs  he,  sell  me  ha 
of  your  land  at  my  own  price,  and  take  this  purse  and  m 
bill  receipted,  for  your  pay.  If  not,  receive  this  knife  in 
your  bosom.  The  offer  of  Mr.  Slidell  was  rejected,  as  w. 
foreseen,  and  he  returned  home.  The  correspondence,  wi’ 
the  attendant  circumstances,  betray  the  extreme  anxiety  c 
the  Federal  Administration  to  provoke  Mexico  into  a wa 
and  raise  a clamor  against  her  in  this  countrjL 

Another  occasion  or  pretext  of  quarrel  with  Mexico  w 
sought  in  a pretended  question  respecting  the  western  bou 
dary  of  Texas.  Mr.  Jay  has  clearly  shown  that  the  acts  i 
this  Government  had  recognized,  in  several  ways,  a bounda ' 
far  to  the  eastward  of  that  which,  on  his  accession  to  t; 
Presidency,  about  the  time  of  the  annexation  of  Texas,  wjj 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


299 


esolutely  maintained,  and  with  a military  force,  by  President 
’oik.  Under  pretense  of  defending  Texas,  which  needed  no 
efense,  General  Taylor  was  stationed  beyond  the  real  borders 
f Texas,  with  discretion  even  to  cross  the  Rio  Grande,  the 
ew  boundary  now  claimed  by  the  President,  in  case  hostili- 
es  were  commenced  by  Mexico.  The  slightest  skirmish  on 
le  newly  claimed  territory,  would  sufficiently  answer  the 
arpose  of  throwing  on  Mexico  the  odium  of  commencing 
ae  war.  All  this  was  sheer  Executive  usurpation,  without 
ie  authority  or  knowledge  of  Congress.  In  the  meantime, 
ve  states  were  required  to  be  in  readiness  to  furnish  aid  to 
en.  Taylor,  though  the  documents  show  that  our  Cabinet 
ere  not  under  the  least  apprehension  of  any  invasion  from 
lexico. 

On  the  very  next  day  after  the  reception  at  Washington  of 
Ivices  from  Mr.  Slidell,  Jan.  12,  1816,  from  which  it  was 
:.ferred,  that  there  was  no  hope  of  a cession  of  California, 
uemptory  orders  were  given  to  Gen.  Taylor  to  advance  to 
'e  Rio  Grande,  and  the  “points  opposite  Metamoras  and 
1 ier,  and  the  vicinity  of  Laredo,  were  suggested  for  his  con- 
deration.”  The  evident  object  was  to  provoke  a collision, 
.fter  a variety  of  ineffectual  manoeuvres  to  provoke  the  Mex- 
hns  to  strike  the  first  blow,  it  was  in  fact  given  by  our  own 
jmy,  and  Gen.  Taylor  announced  to  his  government  that 
dstilities  had  COMMENCED ; on  the  receipt  of  which  Presi- 
cnt  Polk  announced  to  Congress  and  to  the  world  the  untruth 
tat  “ Mexico  had  passed  the  boundary  of  the  United  States , had 
i:aded  our  territory , and  shed  American  blood  on  American  soil.'1 
Ongress,  thereupon,  (rejecting  a motion  to  read  the  docu- 
r;nts)  and  sustaining  a call  for  the  “previous  question,” 
Aiich  precluded  discussion,  adopted  a vote  asserting  the  ex- 
ience  of  war  by  act  of  Mexico!  This  was  on  May  11,  1816, 

1 3 same  day  the  House  received  the  President’s  war  message  ! 

Gen.  Taylor  immediately  took  possession  of  Metamoras; 
ad  the  war  was  vigorously  pushed  westward  to  its  intended 
cbtination,  the  conquest  of  New  Mexico  and  California. 

In  anticipation  of  these  military  movements,  by  land,  a na- 


300 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


val  force  had  been  stationed  in  the  Pacific,  near  the  coast  < 
California,  with  secret  orders  to  Com.  Sloat,  June  24th,  184- 
to  possess  the  port  of  San  Francisco,  and  blockade  or  occuj 
other  ports,  as  soon  as  he  should  hear  of  an  inland  war  ivv 
Mexico.  These  orders  were  now  carried  into  effect,  possessic 
taken  of  Monterey,  and  a proclamation  immediately  issut 
announcing  that  “ California  now  belongs  to  the  United  Statei 
This  was  on  the  7th  of  July,  1846.  Two  days  after,  S; 
Francisco  was  also  in  our  possession.  All  this  in  less  th; 
two  months  after  the  declaration  of  war  by  Congress,  plain 
showing  that  the  conquest  of  California  had  been  determini, 
upon  and  provided  for,  a year  beforehand,  and  while  neitli 
the  people  of  the  United  States  nor  Congress  were  permit! 
to  know  the  designs  of  the  President.  The  declaration  of  vv 
by  Congress  did  not  reach  the  squadron  in  the  Pacific  till  t 
28th  of  August,  fifty-two  days  after  the  Commodore,  by  pi 
clamation,  had  annexed  California  to  the  United  States. 

Another  incident  illustrates  the  same  general  fact.  A p; 
ty  of  adventurers,  overland,  under  Col.  Fremont,  of  the  Uij 
ted  States'  army,  ostensibly  set  out  on  an  exploring  expedite 
to  Oregon,  but  in  reality  destined  to  aid  in  the  conquest 
California,  arrived  there,  among  “ the  American  settlers,”  ai| 
commenced  his  revolutionary  movements  a little  in  advan 
of  the  invasion  by  the  Commodore.  The  little  settleme 
proclaimed  the  independence  of  California.  The  new  repu 
lie  existed  only  four  days,  the  insurrection  very  readily  mei 
ing  itself  in  the  Commodore’s  proclamation  of  annexation 
the  United  States.  Col.  Fremont  afterwards  presented  pec 
niary  claims  upon  our  Government  for  services  in  Californ 
and  the  investigation  drew  out  the  fact  that  he  had  acted  . 
accordance  with  the  designs  of  our  Cabinet,  through  who 
misrepresentations  of  the  matter  it  had  however  been  si- 
posed  that  he  had  acted  on  his  own  responsibility. 

Mr.  Jay  introduces  into  his  volume  some  confessions  of  k. 
Thompson,  our  Minister  in  Mexico,  clearly  showing  the  desi°3 
of  the  Federal  Government,  in  1843,  under  the  administratii 
of  Mr.  Tyler,  to  get  possession  of  California,  and  to  provo3 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


301 


Mexico  into  a war  for  that  purpose.*  He  cites  also  Mr.  Cal- 
bun,  as  having  said  in  the  Senate  of  the  U.  S.,  Feb.  24, 
>47,  (in  reference  to  the  precipitate  action  of  Congress  in  de- 
aling, May  11,  1846,  that  “ war  existed  by  act  of  Mexico”) — 
1 We  had  not  a particle  of  evidence  that  the  Republic  of  Mexico 
\d  made  war  against  the  United  States." \ Mr.  C.  J.  Ingersol, 
j.  chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Pmlations,  in  Feb., 
L47,  made  a report  avowing  the  sentiment  that  the  war  was 
pessary,  in  order  to  get  possession  of  territories  that  “ every 
rnerican  administration  has  been  striving  to  get  by  purchase.”^ 
ad  in  the  same  report,  as  well  as  in  a previous  speech  (Jan. 
Lth)  in  the  House,  Mr.  Ingersol  has  the  robber-like  effrontery 
;■  throw  the  blame  of  the  war  and  its  continuance  upon  Mex- 
c,  because  she  refused  to  sell  us  her  provinces,  which,  says 
i “ she  has  now  constrained  us  to  take  by  force,  though  even  yet 
t are  disposed  to  pay  for  them , not  by  blood  merely,  but  by  money 
c/”§  Mr.  Stanton  of  Tennessee,  Mr.  Beddinger  of  Virginia, 
k Sevier  of  Arkansas,  and  Mr.  Giles  of  Maryland,  openly 
i owed,  on  the  floor  of  Congress,  that  the  war  was  a war  of 
inquest.  Mr.  Polk  had,  however,  in  his  message,  a little 
be  previous,  adventured  the  extraordinary  assertion,  that 
‘ie  war  has  not  been  waged  with  a view  to  conquest.”  In 
mo  to  this  declaration,  a resolution  was  introduced  in  the 
luse  (Jan.,  1847),  disclaiming  a view  to  conquest,  but  the 
y.ise  refused  to  adopt  the  resolution.  The  Southern  press 
bunded  in  gratulations  at  the  prospect  of  conquest,  and  of 
k extension  of  slavery.  Henry  Clay,  in  a speech  in  Ken- 
uky,  declared  that  the  bill  of  Congress,  of  May  11,  1846, 

: tributing  the  commencement  of  the  war  to  the  act  of 
Ixico’”  was  "a  bill  with  a palpable  falsehood  stamped 
aits  face.”||  A new  House  of  Eepresentatives,  “fresh  from 
b people,”  elected  after  the  declaration  of  May  11,  1846, 

; esolved,”  in  the  December  following,  “that  the  war  was 
s?  ecessarily  and  unconstitutionally  begun  by  the  President  of  the 


'ray's  Mexican  War,  pp.  10S-9.  t lb.,  p.  161.  t lb.,  p.  164. 

Cay's  Mexico,  p.  164.  App.  to  Cong.  Globe,  1847,  p.  125.  j lb.,  p.  285. 


302 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


United  States.”*  That  portions  of  Mexico,  including  Califo 
nia,  Avere  unconstitutionally  conquered,  and  treated  and  go- 
erned  as  conquered  territory  by  the  President,  before  tl 
treaty  of  peace,  was  strongly  affirmed  and  clearly  shown 
the  TJ.  S.  Senate,  in  March,  1848,  by  both  Mr.  Webster  ar 
Mr.  Calhoun. f 

Of  the  maimer  in  which  the  war  Avas  prosecuted,  Ave  ha- 
not  room  to  say  much.  The  reader  of  Mr.  Jay’s  RevieAv  w 
find  some  sickening  details  of  lawlessness,  of  rapacity,  < 
plunder,  and  of  outrage,  disgraceful  to  the  American  nan 
Barbarities  were  committed  which  should  make  human! 
weep  and  blush.  General  Taylor  himself,  in  a communk 
tion  to  the  War  Department,  said: 

“ I deeply  regret  to  report  that  many  of  the  twelve  months’  volunteers, 
their  route  hence  of  the  lower  Rio  Grande,  have  committed  extensive  outrap 
and  depredations  upon  the  peaceable  inhabitants.  There  is  scarcely  a 

FORM  OF  CRIME  THAT  HAS  NOT  BEEN  REPORTED  TO  ME  AS  COMMITTED 
THEM.” 

General  Kearney  communicated  a similar  statement.  Tl; 
Californians,  he  says,  “ have  been  shamefully  abused  by  our' ok 
people .” 

When  such  testimonies  come  from  such  witnesses,  we  mir 
conjecture  the  rest. 

But  depredations  on  private  property  Avere  not  confined) 
the  soldiers.  Gen.  Scott,  by  proclamation,  assessed  proving 
and  cities  at  his  pleasure,  on  the  folloAving  conditions: 

“ On  the  failure  of  any  State  to  pay  its  assessments,  its  functionaries  s 
above,  will  be  seized  and  imprisoned,  and  their  property  seizi, 

REGISTERED,  AND  REPORTED,  AND  CONVERTED  TO  THE  USE  OF  THE  OCCU- 

tion,  in  strict  accordance  with  the  general  regulations  of  this  army.” 

No  resignation  of  office  Avas  to  excuse  them,  and  if  e 
money  was  not  promptly  raised,  the  commander  Avod 
“immediately  proceed  to  collect,  from  the  wealthier  inhabited 
(other  than  neutral  friends)  within  his  reach , the  amount  of  e 
assessment  due  from  the  State.”  And  this  was  according^ 


Jay's  Mexico , p.  254. 


+ 3.,  pp.  246-7. 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


303 


astructions  from  Pres.  Polk,  without  the  authority  of  Con- 
;ress.  A million  of  dollars  were  extorted  from  the  Mexicans 
u this  way,  and  three  gambling-houses  were  licensed  in  the 
apital,  by  the  American  commander-in-chief,  in  consideration 
f the  annual  payment  of  eighteen  thousand  dollars  ! Pillage, 
lesolation,  violence,  vice,  crime,  demoralization,  and  death, 
:ept  equal  march  with  the  progress  of  the  American  arms. 
The  Congress  that  had  declared  the  beginning  of  the  war 
nconstitutional,  and  the  members  who  had  denounced  the 
leasure  as  criminal  and  wicked,  were  nevertheless  so  corrupt 
ud  hardened  as  to  vote  money  for  its  continuance  ! A few 
nly  had  the  consistency  and  honesty  to  record  their  votes  in 
le  negative. 

Though  Mr.  Polk  had  declared  our  title  to  the  whole  of 
regon  to  be  “clear  and  unquestionable,”  yet  he  had  surren- 
ered  much  of  it  to  Great  Britain,  to  maintain  relations  of 
eace.  For  Oregon  was  too  far  North  for  the  convenient  use 
; the  slaveholders,  and  it  might  be  made  into  free  States, 
ut  without  the  slightest  claim  to  New  Mexico  and  California, 
3 prosecuted  a war  of  conquest  to  obtain  them,  because  the 
aveholders  desired  them,  and  they  were  expected  to  add  to 
ie  number  of  slave  States,  to  help  govern  the  Union.  These 
ojects  were  openly  avowed  by  the  Southern  press. 

All  wars  of  conquest  have  their  limits.  It  is  not  certain 
■ at  the  administration  sought  to  conquer  and  retain  all 
. exico.  The  central  and  southern  provinces  might  be  diffi- 
<dt  to  be  managed — might  be  found  too  populous  and  too 
:fractory  to  admit,  at  present,  the  quiet  restoration  of  slavery, 
he  war  was  expensive.  The  administration  (and  partly  on 
: count  of  the  war,  and  its  attendant  usurpations)  was  becom- 
ig  unpopular.  Desirous  of  securing  permanently  what  was 
i his  power,  and  what  was  originally  contemplated  by  the 
'ir,  Mr.  Polk  turned  his  thoughts  on  peace.  For  this  pur- 
;>se,  Aug.  8,  1846,  he  recommended  to  Congress  an  appro- 
bation of  two  millions  of  dollars,  to  be  placed  at  his  disposal 
: r that  purpose.  This  request  plainly  indicated  his  desire  to 
lake  an  offer  of  money  for  a cession  of  territory,  and  gave 


304 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


the  lie  to  his  former  pretense,  that  war  was  not  waged  for 
conquest.  A bill  was  introduced  into  the  House  for  this" 
object,  and  was  passed,  but  with  the  celebrated  proviso  offered 
by  Mr.  Wilmot,  that  the  territory  thus  acquired  should  be 
free  from  the  polluting  touch  of  slavery.  The  bill  went  tc 
the  Senate  the  last  day  of  the  session,  but  was  not  acted  upon, 
and  Congress  adjourned. 

At  the  next  session,  the  President’s  application  was  renewed, 
but  asking  now  for  three  millions.  A bill  was  introduced 
into  the  House  for  that  object,  and  this  opened  the  way  foi 
another  introduction  of  the  proviso  against  slavery.  A stormj 
debate  ensued.  The  Southern  members  were  enraged,  declar 
ing  they  would  have  no  territory  under  such  restrictions,  anc 
threatening,  as  usual,  a dissolution  of  the  Union.  The  bil 
was  nevertheless  passed,  and  with  the  proviso,  by  a vote  of 
115  to  106.  In  the  Senate,  the  proviso  was  stricken  out,  3’ 
to  21.  Returning  back  to  the  House,  the  proviso  was  final! 
dropped,  102  to  97,  no  less  than  22  members  absenting  them 
selves.  But  though  now  rejected,  the  proviso  might  after 
wards  be  applied,  in  providing  for  the  government  of  the  ter 
ritories.  This,  the  friends  of  liberty  contemplated,  and  this 
the  slave  party  feared. 

• Under  this  state  of  things,  a great  demonstration  of  sent: 
ment,  by  public  meetings,  was  got  up  at  the  South.  Legisk 
tures  fulminated  their  Resolves  against  the  proviso,  and  th 
line  of  the  Missouri  compromise  36°  30',  began  to  be  propose 
by  the  more  moderate. 

In  August,  1847,  negotiations  were  opened  with  Mexic 
through  our  agent,  Mr.  Trist.  The  Mexican  Commissionei 
were  instructed,  by  their  government  to  insist  that  “ the  Un 
ted  States  shall  engage  not  to  permit  slavery  in  that  part  o 
the  territory  which  they  shall  acquire  by  treaty.”  Mr.  Tri, 
promptly  refused  to  negotiate  a treaty  under  such  restriction 
declaring  them  as  obnoxious  as  “an  order  to#establish  the  ii 
quisition,”  that  “ the  bare  mention  of  such  a treaty  was  £ 
impossibility,”  and  that  no  American  President  “ would  da: 
to  present  any  such  treaty  to  the  Senate.” 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


305 


“ I assured  them,”  says  Mr.  Trist,  (in  his  official  dispatch  to  our  Secretary 
of  State,)  “ that  if  it  were  in  their  power  to  offer  me  the  whole  territory  de- 
scribed in  our  project,  increased  ten-fold  in  value,  and,  in  addition  to  that, 
covered  a foot  thick  all  over  with  pure  gold,  upon  the  single  condition 
that  slavery  should  be  excluded  thereerom,  I could  not  entertain  the 
iffer  for  a moment,  nor  even  think  of  communicating  it  to  Washington.” 

A previous  attempt  at  negotiation  for  peace  had  been  abor- 
.ive,  because  Mexico  had  declined  to  cede  all  New  Mexico, 
md  Upper  and  Lower  California. 

In  the  final  close  of  the  Mexican  war,  these  territories  were 
ibtained  at  a cost  of  fifteen  millions  of  dollars  paid  to 
dexico,  in  addition  to  the  relinquishment  of  our  long-contest- 
id  “ claims.”  Besides  this,  the  direct  expenditures  of  the  war 
,re  estimated  at  over  one  hundred  millions.  Adding  extra 
>ay,  pensions,  bounties  of  land,  &c.,  Mr.  Jay  puts  down  the 
money  cost  of  our  new  territory  at  one  hundred  and  thirty 
iillions  of  dollars.  And  all  this  to  extend  the  area  of 
lavery  beyond  Texas. 


20 


306 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


CHAPTER  XXVII. 

FURTHER  ACTION  OF  THE  FEDERAL  GOVERNMENT — RESULT  OF 
THE  CONQUEST  OF  CALIFORNIA — ITS  ADMISSION  AS  A FREE 
STATE — “ THE  COMPROMISE.” 

Renewed  demand  for  the  “ Wilmot  Proviso”— Southern  cry  of  “ non-intervention” 
— Attempt,  in  Dee.,  1848,  to  introduce  California  as  a State — Attempt  to  clothe 
the  President  with  despotic  power  over  the  conquered  provinces — No  government 
provided  for  them — California  forms  for  herself  a provisional  Government — Scheme 
of  the  South  of  bringing  in  California  as  a State  without  restriction — Mission  of 
Thomas  Butler  King  from  the  Cabinet  at  Washington — Usurpations  of  General 
Riley — His  Proclamation  to  choose  delegates  to  form  a Constitution — The  Califor- 
nians comply,  o-red  form  a Constitution  'prohibiting  Slavery! — Sudden  change  at 
the  South — Opposition  to  the  admission  of  California — Controversy  in  Congress- 
New  Mexico  follows  the  example  of  California,  and  asks  admission,  without  Sla- 
very— Demands  of  Texas  on  Territory  of  New  Mexico — Mr.  Clay’s  plan  of  “ Com- 
promise,” nominally  defeated,  but  substantially  carried — Admission  of  California 
as  a free  State — Territorial  Government  provided  for  New  Mexico  and  Utah,  with- 
out restriction — Boundary  of  Texas  adjusted — Slave  trade  abolished  in  the  Federal 
' District — New  Fugitive  Slave  Bill  (1850) — Its  infamous  provisions. 

There  is  an  overruling  Providence  that  defeats  the  plans 
of  oppressors,  and  covers  the  councils  of  the  crafty  with  con 
fusion.  A more  remarkable  illustration  of  this  consolatory 
truth  is  seldom  furnished  than  in  the  winding  up  of  the  his 
torical  drama  of  the  Mexican  war.  Should  kindred  art: 
seem  to  succeed  in  future,  we  may  trust  that  the  same  benefi 
cent  Providence  will,  in  the  end,  triumph. 

At  the  very  moment  when  the  wishes  of  the  slave  powe 
seemed  about  to  be  consummated,  a new  obstacle  presente< 
itself,  as  already  seen,  in  the  Wilmot  proviso,  that  threatened 
to  exclude  slavery  from  the  conquered  and  purchased  pro 
vinces.  This  proviso,  twice  adopted  in  the  House  of  Represer 
tatives,  in  response  to  the  voice  of  the  people,  had  bee 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


307 


smothered  in  the  more  aristocratic  Senate,  and  by  extraordi- 
nary arts  of  intimidation,  corruption,  and  management,  had, 
at  last,  been  deserted,  for  the  moment,  by  a small  majority  of 
the  Representatives.  But  the  spirit  of  the  people  was  roused, 
and  throughout  the  Free  States,  the  indispensable  condition 
of  support  at  the  polls,  was  the  profession,  on  the  part  of  the 
candidate,  of  sustaining  the  proviso.  The  rival  Whig  and 
Democratic  parties  vied  with  each  other  in  these  professions. 
The  last  session  of  Congress  under  President  Polk’s  adminis 
tration,  was  expected  to  grapple  with  this  question,  and  give 
it  a final  decision,  in  the  act  of  providing,  in  accordance  with 
usage,  for  the  government  of  newly  acquired  territories. 

So  wide  spread  and  so  unequivocal  was  the  expression  of 
this  sentiment,  that  “ no  less  than  fourteen  States  protested 
through  their  legislatures  against  any  enlargement  of  the  area 
of  slavery,”  and  even  the  “voice  of  Daniel  Webster  was 
raised  to  warn  his  countrymen  of  the  impending  calamity.”* 

Alarmed  at  this  aspect  of  things,  and  fearing  to  meet  the 
question  again  in  Congress  in  that  shape,  the  leaders  of  the 
slave  party  resorted  to  a new  stratagem.  They  determined 
l.o  forestal  any  action  by  Congress  for  the  government  of  the 
territories , by  urging  their  immediate  admission  as  States,  with 
he  right  of  shaping  their  domestic  institutions  as  they  pleased. 
The  doctrine  of  “ non-intervention  ” was  now  the  watchword, 
md  it  was  acceptable  to  those  numerous  Northern  politicians, 
n Congress,  who  wished  for  a pretext  to  dodge  a direct  vote 
in  the  proviso.  If  the  principle  of  throwing  the  responsibility 
ipon  the  new  States  were  admitted,  it  would  relieve  them  from 
he  responsibility,  and  shelter  them,  in  some  degree,  from  the 
iispleasure  of  their  constituents  at  home.f  The  democratic 


* Address  on  behalf  Am.  & For.  A.  S.  Soc.,  p.  2. 

t The  real  spirit  of  their  pledges  and  professions  would  indeed  oblige  them  to 
ote  against  the  admission  of  a new  State  whose  Constitution  did  not  exclude  slavery, 
ut  the  doctrine  of  “ non-intervention,”  deriving  its  plausibility  from  the  derno- 
•atie  theory  of  leaving  the  people  of  the  States  to  govern  themselves,  would  relieve 
ieir  embarrassment.  The  sophistry  lay  in  forgetting  that  the  staves  are  a part  of 
the  people,”  and  that  the  business  of  majorities  wielding  civil  government,  is  to 
•oteet  the  equal  rights  of  all. 


308 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


candidate  for  the  Presidency,  General  Cass,  had  occupied  this 
ground.  The  whig  candidate,  General  Taylor,  though  not 
publicly  pledged,  had  been  represented,  by  his  friends  at  the 
North,  as  not  being  disposed  to  veto  the  proviso,  and  being 
now  about  to  take  the  Presidential  chair,  the  prospective  alter- 
native of  being  obliged  to  commit  himself  on  that  point,  was 
disagreeable  to  him,  and  especially  to  his  party.  All  this 
favored  the  new  plot  of  the  slave  interest. 

In  the  early  part  of  the  session,  Dec.  11th,  1848,  a bill  was 
introduced  into  the  Senate  by  Mr.  Douglas  of  Illinois,  for  the 
admission  of  California  as  a State,  which  was  read  twice  and 
ordered  to  be  printed.  The  boundaries  were  to  include  “ all 
that  portion  of  territory  which  was  acquired  by  the  treaty  of 
peace,  &c.,  with  Mexico,”  Congress  reserving  the  right  to  form 
new  states  out  of  it.*  This  would  include  all  of  Utah  and 
all  of  New  Mexico  that  was  not  intended  to  be  absorbed  by 
Texas ! It  was  soon  found  that  this  project  would  not  suc- 
ceed ; but  Mr.  Douglas  presented  a new  bill  in  another  form, 
leaving  New  Mexico  out  of  the  question.  These  bills  con- 
tained, of  course,  no  interdict  of  slavery. f 

Mr.  Foote  of  Mississippi,  on  the  introduction  of  the  first 
bill,  seemed  anxious  to  be  considered  as  its  author,  and  it 
doubtless  had  its  origin  with  slaveholders.  The  Washington 
Union,  the  special  organ  of  President  Polk,  advocated  the 
second  bill,  and  answered  the  objections  of  some  southern 
members  against  it.J  In  the  House,  Mr.  Hilliard  proposed  a 
similar  bill.  The  project  underwent  various  modifications, 
and  finally,  near  the  close  of  the  session,  a substitute  for  them 
all  came  under  debate  in  the  Appropriation  Bill,  and  the 
amendment  of  Mr.  Walker  of  Wisconsin,  which  provided  for 
the  despotic  government  of  the  territories  by  the  President, 
at  his  discretion,  and  without  any  restriction  in  respect  tc 
slavery.  It  contained,  likewise,  a virtual  concession  of  the 
claims  of  slaveholding  Texas  to  all  the  territory  of  New 


* National  Era , Dec.  14,  1848. 
1 3.,  Feb.  22,  1849. 


t 3.,  Jan.  25  and  Feb.  1,  1849. 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


309 


Mexico  east  of  the  Rio  Grande,  and  it  transferred  to  Califor- 
nia certain  laws  regulating  the  domestic  slave  trade  on  the 
Atlantic  seaboard.  All  this  was  passed  in  the  Senate  29  to 
27 — absent  4,* — but  was  defeated  in  the  House. 

The  session  was  thus  occupied  in  a manner  that  staved  off 
direct  action  on  the  proviso,  but  neither  provided  for  the 
government  of  the  acquired  provinces  as  territories,  nor  ad- 
mitted them  into  the  Union  as  states.  Being  thus  left  un- 
provided for,  in  a condition  bordering  on  anarchy  and  under 
military  misrule,  the  Californians  established  for  themselves  a 
Provisional  Government,  and  elected  an  Assembly,  in  Feb., 
1849.  In  the  United  States,  the  controversy  was  still  unde- 
cided, neither  the  friends  nor  the  opponents  of  slavery  exten- 
sion having  carried  any  decisive  measure. 

On  the  accession  of  President  Taylor.  March  4,  1849,  the 
policy  of  his  administration,  from  which  there  appears  to  have 
been,  at  that  time,  no  dissent  among  the  friends  of  slavery 
extension,  was  evidently  to  facilitate  and  hasten  the  organiza- 
tion of  a State  Government  in  California,  without  a prohibi- 
tion of  slavery,  and  bring  her  forward  with  her  new  constitu- 
tion at  the  next  session,  for  admission  into  the  Union.  11  Non 
intervention’''  was  now  the  doctrine  of  the  entire  South,  and 
of  its  Northern  allies.  The  party  supporting  President  Tay 
lor,  even  including  that  large  and  influential  portion  of  it  at 

] — 

* National  Era , March  1 and  S.  It  is  proper  to  add  that  only  seven  senators  from 
he  free  States  voted  in  the  affirmative,  viz:  Messrs.  Dickinson  of  N.  York,  Dodge 
>f  Iowa,  Douglas  of  Illinois,  Fitzgerald  of  Michigan,  Hannegan  of  Indiana,  Sturgeon 
;>f  Pennsylvania,  and  Walker  of  Wisconsin. 

Mr.  Hannegan  was  immediately  appointed  by  Pres.  Polk,  Minister  to  Berlin  (one 
>f  the  last  acts  of  his  administration),  and  (it  is  said)  with  the  concurrence  and 
dvice  of  leading  friends  of  the  President  elect  (Gen.  Taylor),  who  was  known  to 
.lave  used  his  influence  with  members  of  Congress  before  his  inauguration,  in  favor 
■f  Walker’s  amendment,  thus  showing  the  united  sympathy  of  the  two  slaveholding 
’residents  with  that  measure,  as  a substitute  for  the  defeated  project  of  immediately 
dmitting  California,  without  restriction,  as  a State.  Gen.  Taylor’s  earnest  desire 
or  such  admission  was  affirmed  by  the  editor  of  the  National  InteUiffencer,  in  a 
ibored  article  in  support  of  that  policy,  in  which  it  was  maintained  that  as  soon  as 
'alifornia  should  present  herself  with  a Constitution,  asking  admission,  Congress 
•mild  have  no  right  and  no  'pretense  to  interfere  in  the  slave  question. — See  N.  Y. 
Evening  Post,  Nov.  15,  1849. 


310 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


the  North,  that  had  abounded  in  anti-slavery  professions,  and 
had  carried  elections  on  the  merit  of  its  zeal  for  the  Wihnot 
proviso,  began  now  to  represent  that  the  measure  was  not  im- 
portant— that  Mexican  law  remaining  in  force  and  not  re- 
pealed, would  be  a sufficient  guaranty  of  liberty,  or  that  the 
climate  and  other  similar  causes  would  prevent  slavery — and 
finally,  that  if  California  should  present  herself  with  a consti- 
tution containing  no  prohibition  of  slavery,  she  would  be 
entitled  to  admission.  In  absence  of  other  evidence,  the 
policy  of  the  administration  and  of  the  slaveholders  would 
have  been  sufficiently  apparent  from  these  indications.  But 
other  facts  are  at  hand. 

In  the  Cabinet,  the  slave  interest  was  predominant.  Mr. 
Preston  of  Virginia,  Mr.  Crawford  of  Georgia,  Mr.  Johnson 
of  Maryland,  were  slaveholders.  John  M.  Clayton,  Secretary 
of  State,  was  accustomed  to  compromises  with  slavery,  and 
solicitous  to  pursue  a course  that  would  prevent  agitation, 
while  not  one  of  the  remaining  members,  Meredith,  Colla- 
more,  and  Ewing,  were  counted  upon  by  the  advocates  of 
freedom.  The  course  of  such  a cabinet  might  well  be  sup^ 
posed  (in  the  absence  of  any  opposition)  to  represent  the 
policy  of  the  South. 

By  this  President  and  Cabinet,  Thomas  Butler  King  of 
Georgia,  member  of  Congress,  an  earnest  advocate  of  slaver) 
extension,  and  a slaveholder,  was  dispatched  on  a specia 
mission  to  California.  No  sooner  was  he  arrived  there  thai 
he  was  found  urging  the  people  “ to  form  a State  Government 
pledging  the  support  of  the  administration  in  the  movement 
and  insisting  that  the  measure  was  necessary  to  save  Congres 
and  the  old  states  from  a fearful  struggle  on  the  subject  o 
slavery.”*  And  Mr.  King  stood  not  alone.  Along  with  hin 
(whether  as  volunteers  or  emissaries  from  the  southern  cour 
try)  there  were  Hon.  Wm,  M.  Gwin  of'  Mississippi,  ex-membe 
of  Congress,  Ex-Governor  Boggs,  and  Peter  H.  Burnett,  o 
Missouri,  &c.,  exerting  a similar  influence,— Governor  Bog£ 


* National  Era,  Aug.  7,  1S49. 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


311 


writing  home  to  his  friends  that  a few  slaves  could  be  used  to 
advantage  in  the  territory.* 

A public  meeting  was  held  at  San  Jose,  which  was  ad- 
dressed by  Mr.  King  and  Mr.  Gwin. 

Mr.  King  related  the  history  of  the  Wilmot  proviso,  and 
the  divisions  growing  out  of  it,  and  said  : 

“ We  cannot  settle  this  question  on  the  other  side  of  the  Rocky  Moun- 
tains. We  look  to  you  to  settle  it  by  becoming  a State.  The  people  of 
the  old  States  ardently  desire  it.” 

He  then  added, — 

“ I speak  knowingly,  when  I say  the  Administration  desire  it ; and  from 
extensive  intercourse  with  the  members  of  the  last  Congress,  I am  convinced 
they  are  most  anxious  for  the  question  to  be  settled  in  this  way.  You  will 
have  no  difficulty  in  being  admitted  as  a State.  I pledge  myself  to  it,  and 
I pledge  the  Administration,  and  I think  may  speak  equally  confidently  for 
the  next  Congress.  Form  a State  Government,  send  on  your  senators  and 
representatives,  and  then  admission  is  certain.” 

Mr.  Gwin  followed  in  a strain  still  more  unreserved.  He 
represented  that  a “spirit  of  fanaticism”  in  Congress  had  pre- 
vented, for  two  sessions,  the  provision  of  any  form  of  govern- 
ment for  California,  and  intimated  that  “ the  steadfast  friends 
of  California”  were  those  who  were  opposed  to  this  fanaticism. 
He  was  not  so  sanguine  as  Mr.  King  of  their  ready  admission 
as  a state.  He  feared  “we  will  have  to  pass  through  an  ar- 
duous struggle  before  we  obtain  our  rights,” — insinuating  that 
the  “ spirit  of  fanaticism ” at  the  North  would  oppose  the  ad- 
mission. “I  do  not  refer  to  these  difficulties,”  said  he,  “to 
deter  us  from  acting.  Let  all  minor  questions  be  merged  in  the 
great  question  before  usf  . . “dropping  all  local  questions  that  may 
excite  angry  discussions ,”  d'C.  dec. 

The  drift  of  this  advice  was  not  misunderstood,  nor  the 
quarter  from  whence  it  came.  Col.  Hand,  one  of  the  speakers 
at  the  same  meeting,  administered  a timely  rebuke.  After 
denouncing  the  usurpation  of  Gen.  Riley,  he  said  : 

“ Let  the  manaie  politicians  of  the  Atlantic,  who  have  so  kindly  volun- 


* National  Era , Oct.  25,  1849. 


312 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


teered  to  teach  us  semi-barbarians  the  duty  we  owe  to  our  would-be  leaders, 
remain  at  home,  and  when,  after  a residence  of  five  days  in  California,  they  ■ 
again  attempt  to  feel  the  popular  pulse  in  regard  to  slavery,  let  your  indig- 
nation at  their  uncalled  for  interference  be  expressed  in  such  a manner  that 
Gov.  Clayton  cannot  again  say,  without  telling  an  unblushing  falsehood,  we 
are  incapable  of  self-government.”* * * § 

The  friends  of  liberty  at  the  East  had  no  members  or  ex- 
members of  Congress  at  this  meeting,  to  counteract  the  influ- 
ences exerted  there.  The  administration,  however,  had  other 
instruments  to  do  its  bidding.  Gen.  Riley , acting  under  or- 
ders of  our  Federal  Executive,  was  the  well-known  autocrat 
of  California.  The  provisional  government  had  not  recognized 
his  authority,  but  were  in  possession  of  no  organized  means  of 
resisting  his  usurpations.  His  authority  was  however  des- 
tined, for  once,  to  facilitate  a better  organization.  In  strict 
accordance  with  its  settled  policy,  as  already  exhibited,  the 
Cabinet  at  Washington  instructed  Gen.  Riley f to  issue  a Pro- 
clamation directing  the  choosing  of  delegates  to  form  a State 
Constitution,  which  was  accordingly  done, — the  terms  of  the 
Proclamation  prescribing  the  time  and  mode  of  elections,  and 
even  assuming  the  existence  of  slavery , by  making  a distinction 
between  bond  and  free,  in  defining  who  should  be  electors.} 
This  specification  was  founded,  doubtless,  on  the  fact,  thal 
slaves  were  then  in  the  territory  and  in  process  of  not  infre- 
quent introduction  there  by  slaveholding  immigrants,  a facl 
very  generally  understood.  The  Alabama  Journal  had  de 
dared  that  the  experiment  had  been  tested,  that  slaves  had 
been  carried  there  and  were  held  in  safety,  and  it  urged  the 
“ slaveholders  to  emigrate  there  with  their  property  in  suffi- 
cient numbers  to  control  the  policy  of  the  country.”§  Gen 
Riley  likewise  “ apportioned  the  delegates  so  as  to  throw  the 


* National  Era , Aug.  7,  1S49. 

+ We  have  met  with  no  contradiction  or  disclaimer  of  this  alleged  action  of  the 
administration  on  the  part  of  Pres.  Taylor  or  his  friends,  Northern  or  Southern, 
though  it  has  been  made  the  subject  of  free  animadversion  by  opposite  classes  of; 
citizens,  first  at  the  North,  and  afterwards  at  the  South, 

t See  N.  Y.  Weekly  Evening  Post,  Nov.  15,  1849. 

§ National  Era , Nov.  1,  1849. 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


318 


weight  of  political  power  into  the  towns  where  the  officers 
md  dependents  of  the  United  States  Government  exercised 
nost  influence.”* * * § 

The  Provisional  Government,  ivhich  had  been  but  feebly 
sustained,  considered  it  the  best  policy  to  acquiesce  in  this 
novement  of  Gen.  Eiley,  and  the  Assembly  therefore  ceased 
o exist. f The  delegates  were  accordingly  elected  and  assem- 
fled  in  convention  at  Monterey,  Sept.  1,  1849. 

Up  to  this  time,  nay,  on  the  receipt  of  this  intelligence  at 
Washington  and  New  York,  about  the  middle  of  October,  and 
or  some  time  afterwards,  the  common  impression  among  all 
■lasses  in  the  States  was,  that  the  new  Constitution  of  Califor- 
iia  would  contain  no  prohibition  of  slavery ; that  a slavehold- 
ng  population  from  the  southern  states  would  rapidly  rush 
n,  that  the  effort  for  the  admission  of  the  new  slave  State  into 
he  Union  would  be  vigorously  pushed,  and  would  most  pro- 
bably succeed.  The  tone  of  the  journals  opposed  to  the  ex- 
ension  of  slavery  was  generally  marked  by  apprehensions  of 
his  character,;}:  while  the  southern  editors  heralded  the  pass- 
ng  events  with  an  air  of  assurance  and  satisfaction.  It  was 
mown,  indeed,  that  some  of  the  inhabitants  of  California 
vere  opposed  to  slavery,  but  the  controlling  influences  were 
upposed  to  be  on  the  other  side.  Mr.  Gwin,  it  was  predicted, 
rould  be  President  of  the  Constitutional  Convention.  The 
■ro-slavery  ticket  had  triumphed  in  San  Francisco.  Thomas 
lutler  King,  Mr.  Gwin,  and  Ex-Governor  Boggs  of  Missouri, 
nd  Ex-Governor  Shannon,  a pro-slavery  democrat,  were  the 
rominent  candidates  for  Senators,  from  the  new  State.§  Had 
ohn  C.  Calhoun,  and  other  statesmen  of  that  stamp,  enter- 
ained  any  serious  apprehensions  of  a prohibition  of  slavery 
■y  the  Constitution  of  California,  it  is  not  to  be  supposed  that 


* National  Era , Aug.  7, 1849. 

t Alta  California  of  July  26,  copied  into  N.  7.  Weekly  Evening  Post  of  Sept. 
),  1849. 

t Witness  the  N.  Y.  Weekly  Evening  Post , of  Oct.  18,  1849,  and  National  Era  of 
ct.  25  and  Nov.  1. 

§ National  Era  of  Oct.  25,  1849. 


314 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


they  would  have  been  silent  while  these  measures  were  i 
progress.  As  it  was,  the  country  heard  nothing  of  their  con' 
plaints  against  the  administration,  till  the  result  of  its  polic 
disappointed  them. 

Few  items  of  newspaper  intelligence  ever  took  the  Amer 
can  people  more  completely  by  surprise  than  the  following  i 
the  new  Constitution  of  California : 

“ Neither  slavery  nor  involuntary  servitude,  except  for  the  pu; 

ISHMENT  OF  CRIME,  SHALL  EVER  BE  TOLERATED  IN  THIS  STATE.” 

The  public  mind  was  not  relieved  of  suspense,  till  the  a. 
ceptance  of  this  Constitution  by  the  people  was,  some  weel 
afterward,  ascertained. 

The  result  is  to  be  traced  to  a number  of  causes,  neiths 
foreseen  nor  understood  in  the  United  States,  till  the  resu 
had  developed  them.  The  immigration  from  the  South  a] 
pears  to  have  been  less  extensive  than  had  been  suppose 
owing  to  apprehensions  on  the  part  of  slaveholders,  that  tl 
Wilmot  proviso  would  be  applied  to  the  territory,  or  th; 
California  would  not  be  admitted,  as  a slave  state.  Of  tl 
southern  settlers,  some  too,  had  come  there  for  the  vei 
purpose  of  escaping  from  the  blight  of  slavery,  and  othe: 
■who  had  come  to  explore  the  country,  leaving  their  slavi 
behind  them,  were  content,  on  observation  and  reflection,  i 
try  a new  order  of  things.  A preponderating  population  hr 
poured  in  from  the  free  States,  in  quest  of  California  gol 
some  few  of  whom  were  opposed  to  slavery  on  principle,  ar. 
most  of  them,  enlightened  by  the  recent  discussions  at  tl 
north,  on  that  subject,  understood  the  irreconcilable  an  tag 
nism  between  free  and  slave,  labor.  As  their  chief  capit 
was  their  own  industry,  they  knew  better  than  to  welcon 
the  competition  of  unpaid  laborers,  and  the  affinity  of  fr< 
laborers  with  slaves.  Commercial  adventurers  understoc 
that  free  labor  was  the  only  substantial  element  of  endurii 
wealth.  Politicians  and  editors,  and  through  them  the  who 
community,  knew  that  the  admission  of  California  as  a sla’ 
state  would  be  opposed  by  the  moral  stamina  of  the  Nor;. 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


315 


ind  the  North-West  * Add  to  all  this,  the  Californians  had 
lad  a taste  of  the  autocratic  control  of  the  Slave  Power,  under 
he  military  despotism  that  had  been  provided  for  them ; the 
>riginal  inhabitants  had  no  affection  for  the  invaders  who  had 
ionquered  them,  and  all  except  the  interested  few  had  been 
lisgusted  by  the  air  of  superiority  and  dictation  that  had 
)een  displayed  by  the  slaveholders  who  had  just  come  among 
hem,  to  prescribe  for  them,  as  by  authority  from  Washington, 
ehat  institutions  they  should  frame. 

A review  of  this  result  shows  us  that,  in  more  ways  than 
me,  the  anti-slavery  agitation  at  the  North  had  contributed 
argely  to  shape  the  public  sentiment  and  the  destinies  of  Cal- 
fornia.  The  wisdom  of  the  masses  of  people  in  that  territory, 
leterogeneous  and  undirected  as  they  were,  in  deciding  so 
orrectly  and  so  promptly  the  great  moral,  economical,  and  po- 
itical  problem  that  still  perplexes  the  precedent-ridden  and 
lemagogue-befooled  citizens  of  the  old  states,  presents  a splen- 
lid  exemplification  of  the  safety  of  the  democratic  principle, 
mder  the  Providence  of  God,  and  illustrates  the  great  foun- 
lation  truth  of  religion  and  morality,  that  the  moral  sense , in 
nan,  left  to  itself,  and  acting  freely,  without  bias,  is  often 
ound  a safe  guide,  in  cases  that  baffle  the  skill  and  confound 
he  calculations  of  the  crafty,  f 

The  doctrine  of  “ non-intervention,”  so  sedulously  cultiva- 
ed,  demanded  now  the  prompt  admission  of  California  as  a 
'ree  state  ! But  the  demand  was  destined  to  knock  at  bolted 
loors.  President  Taylor  indeed,  and  the  northern  wing  of 
as  party,  desirous  of  his  re-election  and  their  own  preserved 
>ower,  were  in  no  condition  to  repudiate  their  own  doctrine 
,nd  eat  their  own  words.  Their  chosen  policy  of  non-com- 
aittal  on  the  Wilmot  proviso,  still  led  them  to  seek  the  ad- 
nission  of  California  as  a State.  The  northern  democrats  who 


* See  Alta  California  of  July  2,  copied  by  the  National  Era  of  Aug.  16,  1849. 
t Since  the  above  paragraph  was  written  there  have  appeared  strong  indications 
f a desperate  attempt  to  extend  slavery  into  California,  accompanied  with  partial 
access.  We  will  still  hope  for  the  best,  and  that  the  safety  of  California  will  be 
soured  in  the  liberation  of  the  whole  country. 


316 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


had  supported  Gen.  Cass,  under  the  motto  of  “ non-interve 
tion,”  could  make  no  show  of  self-consistency,  could  hold  v 
no  manly  front,  at  the  North,  if  they  deserted  California  no- 
And  those  who  had  been  elected  under  pledges  to  sustain  tl 
Wilmot  proviso  should  be  expected  to  be  prompt  in  renderii 
this  easier  service.  What  pretext,  indeed,  could  any  Senat* 
or  Representative  from  a free  state,  devise,  for  not  urging,  ea 
nestly,  the  admission  of  a free  State?  The  North,  as  being 
majority,  had  the  matter  in  their  own  hands.  Add  to  all  thi 
the  slaveholding  President  himself,  in  his  Message  on  tl 
opening  of  the  Session,  (in  December,  1849,)  had  mentions 
the  reception  of  California  with  favor,  and  the  less  violent  ai 
rabid  of  slaveholding  statesmen,  including  two  promine 
leaders  of  the  rival  parties,  Messrs.  Benton  and  Clay,  we 
understood  to  approve  the  President’s  course.  An  easy  vi 
tory  should  have  been  anticipated  for  the  friends  of  Ca 
fornia. 

Instead  of  this,  the  struggle  was,  perhaps,  the  most  viole; 
and  lung-protracted  ever  witnessed  in  our  national  counci 
The  extreme  slave  party,  led  on  by  Mr.  Calhoun,  demands 
not  only  the  rejection  of  California,  but  other  concessions 
the  slave  power,  including  an  amendment  of  the  Constitutkj 
■ that  should  equalize  the  political  power  of  the  free  and  sla’ 
states,  as  a condition  of  the  continuance  of  the  Union.  Tl 
application  of  California  for  admission  was  repelled  on,tl 
ground  that  she  came  without  leave  of  Congress  and  und' 
executive  direction.  The  administration  of  President  TayL 
was  arraigned  for  its  activity  in  the  measure,  and  intimatioi 
were  made  by  Mr.  Calhoun,  that  the  policy  might  have  hi 
its  origin  under  President  Polk.  Whether  by  Mr.  Polk,  Ge 
Taylor,  or  Gen.  Riley,  it  was  unequivocally  denounced. 

While  this  controversy  was  raging  in  Congress,  New  Me? 
co,  from  similar  causes,  and  in  imitation  of  the  example  < 
California,  adopted  a State  Constitution,  excluding  slaver 
and  applied  also  for  admission  into  the  Union. 

The  slaveholding  State  of  Texas,  alarmed  by  this  mov 
ment,  now  urged  her  pretensions  of  a western  boundary  th; 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


317 


iculd  include  a large  portion  of  New  Mexico,  by  whom  this 
retension  was  repelled,  and  Texas  threatened  a resort  to 
ems. 

In  this  state  of  things  a plan  of  so-called  compromise  was 
itrodueed  into  the  Senate  by  a committee  of  thirteen,  of 
hich  Mr.  Clay  was  chairman,  embracing  the  following  par- 
culars,  viz:  1.  The  future  admission  of  new  slave  States,  to 
3 formed  out  of  Texas.  2.  The  admission,  forthwith,  of 
alifornia,  with  her  proposed  boundaries.  3.  The  establish- 
ment of  territorial  governments  without  the  Wilmot  proviso, 
r New  Mexico  and  Utah.  4.  The  combination  of  the  two 
st  mentioned  measures  in  one  bill.  5.  The  establishment  of 
ie  Western  and  Northern  boundary  of  Texas  excluding  from 
^jurisdiction  all  of  New  Mexico,  with  a grant  to  Texas  of 
: pecuniary  equivalent.  6.  More  effectual  enactments  to  se- 
are  the  return  of  fugitive  slaves,  (as  previously  introduced  in 
bill  by  Mr.  Mason  of  Virginia.)  7.  The  abolition  of  the 
iave  trade,  but  not  slavery,  in  the  District  of  Columbia.* 

Mr.  Clay’s  project  of  securing  all  these  measures  simultane- 
ity, by  the  adoption  of  this  Report  of  the  Committee,  did 
)t  succeed.  After  a tedious  and  protracted  effort,  the  plan 
as  marred  by  amendments,  till  the  Report,  as  a whole,  was 
efeated  and  abandoned.  A similar  project  was  next  attempt- 
I by  separate  bills,  and  with  the  following  results : 

1.  The  admission  of  California  as  a free  State,  with  her 
roper  boundaries. 

2.  Territorial  governments  for  New  Mexico  and  Utah  with- 
ut  excluding  slavery,  and  with  the  provision  that  the  States 
ireafter  formed  out  of  them  shall  be  admitted  into  the  Union 
iither  with  or  without  slavery,  as  the  Constitutions  of  the  new 
i.ates  shall  decide. 

3.  The  boundary  of  Texas  is  so  fixed  as  to  surrender  to  that 
ave  State  at  least  ninety  thousand  square  miles  of  free  soil, 
id  yet  the  same  bill  creates  a national  debt  of  ten  millions 


* See  National  Era  of  May  16,  1850. 


318 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


of  dollars  to  buy  off  the  notoriously  fraudulent  and  unfounded 
claims  of  Texas  to  New  Mexico.* 

4.  The  abolition  of  the  slave  trade,  but  not  of  slavery,  i: 
the  District  of  Columbia.  This  does  not  prevent  citizens  of  th 
Federal  District  from  selling  their  slaves  into  any  of  the  States 
It  only  prevents  traders  from  bringing  slaves  into  the  Distric 
for  sale  and  transportation. 

5.  An  act,  supplementary  to  the  act  of  1793,  for  facilitatin; 
the  recapture  of  fugitive  slaves.  By  this  new  act  all  the  re 
maining  defenses  of  personal  liberty,  in  the  non-slaveholdiy 
States,  are  effectually  broken  down,  and  every  man,  black  o 
white,  (for  the  law  makes  no  distinction,)  holds  his  exemptio 
from  chattelhood,  so  far  as  legal  protection  is  concerned,  a 
the  mercy  of  any  Southern  man  who  may  choose  to  claim  hir 
as  his  slave,  in  connection  with  any  one  of  a horde  of  goverr 
ment  officials,  to  be  appointed  for  the  special  purpose,  who  i 
authorized  to  surrender  him,  without  jury  trial,  with  no  testi 
rnony  but  that  of  the  claimant  or  his  agent,  while  the  test 
mony  of  the  person  claimed  is  not  to  be  received.  All  citizen 
are  commanded  to  assist  in  seizing  and  surrendering  fugitive; 
and  all  persons  are  forbidden  to  harbor  them  or  aid  their  es 
cape,  under  penalty  of  one  thousand  dollars,  with  imprison 
ment  not  exceeding  six  months,  besides  one  thousand  dollar 
to  be  recovered  in  a civil  suit  for  damages,  for  each  slave  s 
aided  or  harbored.f 


* National  Era , Sept.  12,  1850. 

t It  will  be  seen  that  the  substance  of  Mr.  Clay’s  Compromise  bill  was  reached  l 
these  separate  enactments.  According  to  Thomas  II.  Benton,  Senator  from  Missour 
there  was  still  another  item  in  the  Compromise,  not  included  in  the  Report  of  tl 
Committee  of  Thirteen,  but  the  subject  of  a verbal  understanding  among  the  men 
bers.  The  cotton  manufacturers  of  New  England  were  to  be  propitiated  by  a hig 
tariff.  But  after  the  Southern  members  had  got  all  they  could,  and  especially  tl 
Fugitive  Slave  Bill,  they  deserted  their  Eastern  friends,  and  defeated  the  tariff  i 
the  House  of  Representatives.  The  following  is  from  the  National  Era  of  Oe 
3,  1850 : 

“ Mr.  Benton  is  apt  to  be  very  pithy  in  colloquial  comment.  Conversing  with 
senatorial  friend  the  other  day,  about  the  Compromise  or  Omnibus,  in  which  1 
took  so  tender  an  interest,  he  remarked  : 1 Sir,  there  were  four  inside  passengers  j 
that  Omnibus — there  was  California,  sir  ; there  was  New  Mexico  ; there  was  Texa 
there  was  Utah,  sir! — four  inside  passengers.  There  was  two  outside  passenger 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


319 


CHAPTER  XXVIII. 

I 

lURTHER  ACTION  OF  THE  FEDERAL  GOVERNMENT — GENERAL 
POLICY  AND  POLITICAL  ECONOMY  CONTROLLED  BY  SLAVERY. 


msiderations  and  testimonies  in  point — Commercial  prosperity  of  the  North — The 
Embargo — Non-intercourse — Second  Embargo — Destruction  of  the  Old  National 
Bank — Calhoun’s  War  of  1812  with. Great  Britain — Treatment  of  New  England — 
Southern  ascendency  established — Rise  of  manufactures — Their  wreck  on  return 
of  Peace — Revival  of  Northern  Commerce — Calhoun’s  Protective  Tariff  of  1816 — 
Southern  call  for  a National  Bank,  and  why  ? — Pecuniary  embarrassments  of 
1S19-20 — Southern  bankruptcy  of  1S24 — Cotton  Speculations  of  1826  and  1837 — 
Bankruptcy  of  U.  S.  Bank,  and  why  ? — Its  demise — Clamors  of  Calhoun  against 
his  own  Tariff  system — Nullification — Recapitulation — Note  concerning  State 
'action. 

With  the  facts  of  the  preceding  history  before  us,  it  is  very 
atural  to  inquire  on  what  maxims,  with  what  aims,  and  for 
hat  objects,  the  general  policy  of  the  Federal  Government  has 
ien  moulded,  from  the  beginning  to  the  present  time.  Xot 
single  administration  of  that  government  have*  we  found 
:ee  from  the  controlling  influence  of  slavery.  Xot  only  has 
savery  been  steadily  fostered  as  an  important  interest  of  the 
ountry,  but  as  the  paramount , the  all-absorbing  interest,  be- 
:re  whose  claims  every  other  interest  and  all  other  interests 
"mbined,  have  been  forced  to  give  way. 

We  have,  thus  far,  considered  only  the  direct  action  of  the 


f : There  was  the  fugacious  Slave  Bill,  and  the  District  Slave-trade  Abolition  Bill, 
ey  could  not  be  admitted  inside,  but  they  had  outside  seats,  and  the  inside  and 
tside  passengers  could  be  seen  and  known,  sir.  But  there  was  another  passenger, 
der  the  driver’s  seat,  sir ; carefully  concealed  in  the  boot,  sir ; breathing  through 
< nks  and  holes  like  Henry  Box  Brown,  sir — -the  Tariff,  sir  1 But  he  had  a worse 
1 e than  Box  Brown — he  was  killed — killed  in  the  House,  sir — and  I hope  we  shall 
. ve  no  more  Omnibuses  and  no  more  passengers  in  the  boot,  sir  !’  ” 


320 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


Federal  Government,  in  manifest  support  of  slavery.  But  tin 
general  policy  and  tire  political  economy  of  the  country  could 
scarcely  fail  to  have  had  the  most  important  bearings  eithe: 
for  or  against  the  slave  interest.  Is  it  credible  that  this  ha: 
been  overlooked?  With  the  ever  watchful  eye  that  we  knov 
the  slave  power  has  had  over  its  own  interests,  with  all  tin 
successive  administrations  of  the  Government  under  its  con 
trol,  and  ready,  as  we  have  seen,  to  do  its  bidding,  with  slave 
holding  Presidents  and  Cabinets  of  their  selection,  forty-nim 
years  out  of  sixty-one,  and  while  the  support  of  slavery  ha 
been  their  constant  care,  can  it  be  believed  that  the  ever  con 
dieting  and  totally  irreconcilable  interests  of  free  and  slave  la 
bor  have  never  been  thought  of,  nor  taken  into  consideration 
in  shaping  our  national  policy?  Or  can  it  be  supposed  tha 
the  always  dominant  slave  power,  everywhere  else  true  to  it 
own  rapacious  instincts,  has,  just  here,  where  the  chess  game 
of  political  economy  are  constantly’played  between  the  riva 
interests  of  the  country,  been  inattentive,  or  neutral,  or  tha 
it  has  held  the  balances  between  the  slaveholding  and  noD 
slaveholding  States,  with  an  even  and  impartial  hand  ? N 
intelligent  citizen  can  believe  this.  We  might  almost  be  cei 
tain,  therefore,  in  advance  of  all  direct  scrutiny  of  the  facts  c 
our  history,  that  the  general  policy  of  the  country  has  bee: 
moulded  by  the  slave  power,  for  the  benefit  of  slavery,  and  i 
consequent  hostility  to  the  interests  of  free  labor.  The  lar 
of  self-preservation  would  require  this,  especially  as  the  intei 
ests  of  slave  labor  are  always  destined  to  grapple  with  th 
inherent  thriftlessness,  imbecility  and  decline  incident  to  th 
system,  in  striking  contrast  to  the  ever  buoyant  and  recupei 
ative  energies  of  free  labor.  It  would  not  be  enough  for  th 
slave  power,  acting  as  a political  economist,  and  mainly  inter 
on  retaining  its  political  supremacy,  to  content  itself  with  di 
vices  and  expedients  to  prop  up  and  encourage  slave  labo 
It  must  do  more  than  this.  It  must  adroitly  stab  and  cripp 
its  rival.  It  must  so  shape  and  shift  public  measures  as  1 
disarrange,  thwart,  perplex,  and  unsettle  the  pursuits  and  tl 
arrangements  of  free  laborers,  or  else  itself  fall  into  inevitab 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


321 


eclipse,  sustain  certain  defeat,  and  let  go  the  sceptre  of  power. 
An  illustration  and  proof  of  all  this  we  have  in  the  recent  de- 
mand of  the  late  Mr.  Calhoun,  that  the  Constitution  should 
be  so  amended  as  to  restore  to  the  slave  States  the  same  rela- 
tive power  that  they  had,  at  the  first  organization  of  the  gov- 
ernment, and  which  we  know  they  have  lost,  in  despite  of 
their  political  ascendancy,  by  the  opposite  tendencies  of  free- 
dom and  slavery.  In  making  that  desperate  demand,  Mr. 
Calhoun  laid  bare  his  own  heart,  and  the  settled  policy  of  the 
oligarchy  of  slaveholders.  The  free  North  must  be  shorn  of  her 
nun  natural  strength,  when  needful , that  slavery  may  preserve  her 
balance  of  poiuer.  With  this  simple  key,  the  historian  may 
rnlock  the  otherwise  inexplicable  labyrinths  of  American 
oolitics,  for  the  last  sixty  years.  Thus  instructed,  he  will  be 
enabled  to  read  into  one  straightforward  and  undeviating 
flapter  of  national  policy  the  fluctuations  of  eleven  Presiden- 
tial administrations,  amid  all  the  idle  clamor  of  rival  aspirants, 
md  the  rise  and  fall  of  the  contending  factions  that  have  al- 
ernately  affected  to  be  the  Government.  In  all  these  apparent 
flanges,  the  slave  power  has  governed,  and  with  one  steady 
ourpose,  and  never  more  steadily  and  effectively  than  in  the 
nidst  of  seeming  change  and  caprice. 

If  any  one  considers  this  a severe  charge  against  the  South, 

. southern  witness  shall  be  summoned  to  the  stand.  The  tor- 
uring  rack  of  party  exigences  and  of  personal  rivalry,  on 
>ne  occasion,  extorted  the  confession,  on  northern  soil,  from 

statesman  of  the  South.  At  a New  York  State  Whig  Con- 
•ention  in  Utica,  in  1839,  Mr.  Stanley,  “ the  eloquent  member 
f Congress,  from  North  Carolina,”  declared  that  “John  C. 
Calhoun  introduced  a certain  measure  (the  sub-treasury  bill) 
s a southern  measure.”  “ Mr.  Calhoun ,”  continued  Mr.  Stan- 
cy,  “ knew  that  it  must  break  down  northern  manufactures  and 
ipital , and  destroy  the  North.  I conversed  with  Mr.  Calhoun  ; 
e expressed  himself  contemptuously  of  Mr.  Yan  Buren  ; he 
poke  of  him  only  as  a ‘fly  on  the  wheel.’  It  was  not  his 
measure,  but  our  measure.  We  could  retrieve  all  or  destroy .” 

It  is  in  no  spirit  of  sympathy  with  the  whig  party,  and  with 

21 


322 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


no  particular  hostility  to  the  sub-treasury  bill,  (on  its  owe 
merits)  that  we  record  this  disclosure  of  Mr.  Stanley.  Whai 
we  would  bring  into  notice  is  the  fact  that  influential  south- 
ern statesmen,  of  opposite  political  parties,  are  in  the  habit  of 
commending  to  each  other,  in  familiar  conversation,  their  re- 
spective measures  of  national  polic}r,  as  being  adapted  to  de 
range  northern  capital , and  perplex  the  arrangements  and  opera 
tions  of  free  labor.  We  shall  see  how  effectually  this  has  beer 
done  as  we  proceed. 

The  clause  of  the  Constitution  directing  the  apportionmen 
of  “representatives  and  direct  taxes,”  by  the  same  complex, 
and  unequal  estimate  of  inhabitants,'31'  affords  evidence  tha 
direct  taxation  was  contemplated  by  the  framers  of  that  in 
strument.  It  is  not  credible  that  the  northern  members  woulc 
have  consented  to  yield  up  their  due  share  of  representation 
but  for  the  prospect  that  the  southern  states,  as  being  the 
gainers  in  that  part  of  the  bargain,  would  return  an  equiva 
lent  by  paying  the  larger  portion  of  the  taxes.  It  was  eh? 
racteristic  of  the  North  to  stipulate  for  a pecuniary  compensa 
tion,  as  it  was  of  the  South  to  grasp  after  an  undue  share  o: 
political  power.  How  rigorously  the  South  has  claimed  and 
exercised  her  stipulated  political  power,  has  been  exhibited 
already  in  part.  In  completing  the  picture,  we  shall  shov 
how,  in  the  use  of  that  political  power  the  North  has  beet 
defrauded  of  her  stipulated  pecuniary  equivalent.  One  won 
tells  this  part  of  the  story.  No  “ direct  taxes ” or  none  of  an 
importance,  have  ever  been  levied  ! And  the  device  by  whin 
the  fulfilment  of  this  constitutional  compromise  was  evadec 
furnishes  a clue  to  the  policy  which  has  controlled  the  fiscal 
arrangements  of  the  country  ever  since. 

It  was  among  the  first  cares  of  the  slaveholding  oligarch] 
after  the  organization  of  the  Federal  Government,  and  unde 
its  first  administration,  to  evade  the  payment  of  any  “dim 
taxes”  into  the  treasury.  Well  knowing,  that  if  a revenn 
could  be  derived  from  duties  on  merchandize  imported,  th 


* Art.  I.,  Sec.  2,  Clause  3. 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


328 


burden  would  fall  mainly  on  the  states  that  imported  and  con- 
sumed most  of  foreign  merchandize,  and  that  these  would  be 
the  non-slaveholding  states,  a tariff  sufficient  for  the  purposes 
of  revenue,  yet  ostensibly  designed  to  favor  the  gradual 
growth  of  domestic  manufactures,  was  thus  early  introduced ; 
and  so  far  as  the  raising  of  revenue  is  concerned,  has  continued 
the  settled  policy  of  the  country  ever  since.  Amid  all  the 
fluctuations  and  controversies  respecting  the  tariff,  a sufficient 
impost  for  'purposes  of  revenue  has  been  conceded  by  all  par- 
ties— controlled  as  all  parties  have  been  by  slavery — till  it 
almost  seems  to  have  been  forgotten  that  a revenue  can  be 
raised  in  any  other  way,  or  that  the  power  to  levy  “direct 
taxes”  was  ever  vested  in  the  government.  This  was  the 
first  triumph  of  slavery  over  the  political  economy  of  the 
country,  and  is  closely  connected  with  all  its  triumphs  since. 
By  thus  replenishing  the  National  Treasury  by  a method  of 
taxation,  bearing  chiefly  on  the  free  states,  and  from  which 
the  slave  states  are  comparatively  exempt,  the  Slave  Power 
that  wields  the  National  Government  has  been  supplied  with 
an  ample  revenue  with  which  to  carry  on  its  more  direct 
operations  in  behalf  of  slavery — its  purchase  of  new  slave 
territory — its  pro-slavery  diplomacy — and  its  pro-slavery  wars. 
With  only  a revenue  raised  by  “ direct  taxes,"  very  little  in 
these  directions  could  have  been  realized. 

The  present  century  opened  with  a remarkable  state  of 
things.  Our  country  was  at  peace  with  all  the  avorld,  and, 
With  exception  of  a contest  with  the  petty  states  of  Barbarv, 
we  remained  at  peace,  until  the  war  with  Britain,  in  1812. 
Europe  was  embroiled  in  war.  England,  with  some  of  the 
continental  powers,  contested  the  fearful  strides  of  Napoleon. 
Every  European  nation  was  enlisted  on  one  side  or  the  other, 
md  Europe  became  one  vast  encampment.  Her  agriculturists 
ind  artizans  were  under  arms.  Her  commerce  was  swept 
rom  the  sea  by  her  own  contending  navies.  Even  Britain, 
‘lord  of  the  ocean,”  was  powerful  only  to  destroy,  but  could 
lot  protect  her  own  merchantmen.  America,  as  the  only 
leutral  and  maratime  nation,  reaped  rich  harvests.  She  was 


324 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


the  carrier  of  all  Christendom.  She  not  only  vended  her  own 
products  at  her  own  prices,  but  levied  tribute  at  her  pleasure,  • 
upon  the  produce  of  all  nations,  upon  those  of  South  Ameri- 
ca, the  Caribbean  Islands,  Eastern  India,  and  China.  Not  a 
chest  of  tea,  not  a bale  of  nankins,  not  a bag  of  coffee,  not  a 
barrel  of  flour,  not  a bale  of  cotton,  at  treble  their  present 
prices,  could  purchase  the  insurer’s  passport  to  cross  the  ocean, 
unless  covered  by  the  stripes  and  stars  of  the  North  American 
States.  Within  less  than  two  hundred  years  after  the  landing 
at  Plymouth  was  this  wonderful  phenomenon  witnessed  ; and 
by  the  sons  of  the  pilgrims,  chiefly,  was  this  immense  contri- 
bution gathered.  In  the  counting-houses  of  New  England 
and  New  York,  were  seated  the  merchant  princes,  more  po- 
tent and  more  comprehensive  in  their  sway  than  those  of 
ancient  Tyre,  by  whom  this  vast  tribute  was  levied. 

But  where  was  the  sunny  South  at  this  period.  Did  she 
thrust  in  her  sickle,  and  gather  golden  harvests,  when  the 
earth  was  reaped?  Where  were  her  gallant  ships?  Her 
princely  merchants — ivliere  ? The  South  had  no  foreign  com- 
merce. The  cheerful  music  of  the  caulker,  the  rigger,  and 
the  sailor,  mingle  not  with  the  sound  of  the  driver’s  lash. 
The  spoiled  sons  of  effeminacy,  lawlessness  and  sloth,  the 
heroes  of  the  whip  and  the  bowie-knife,  are  not  merchants.! 
The  traffickers  in  women  and  babes  excel  not  in  lawful  com- 
merce. The  land  of  slavery  did  not  prosper.  The  curse  of 
omnipresent  justice,  interwoven  into  the  slave  system  itself, 
was  gnawing  at  her  vitals.  She  turned  her  eye  of  anguish 
and  envy  at  the  free  and  prospering  North,  inquiring  within 
herself  how  she  could  preserve  her  balance  of  power. 

The  Slave  Power,  like  the  power  of  the  pit,  never  lacks  for 
a stratagem.  The  Slave  Power  ruled  in  the  Cabinet,  and  stood 
behind  the  Presidential  Chair.  I sin  not  against  the  demo- 
cracy of  Mr.  Jefferson.  His  democracy,  however  correct  in 
theory,  was  here,  as  on  his  plantation,  held  in  abeyance,  and 
cherished  “ in  the  abstract.”  There  was  nothing  of  Mr.  Jef-i 
ferson’s  democracy  in  his  slaveholding  : and  there  was  nothing! 
of  it  in  the  embargo.  That  measure,  dictated  probably  againsl 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


325 


his  wishes  by  the  Slave  Power,*  was  levelled  at  the  commer- 
cial prosperity  of  the  free  North.  Democracy,  as  expounded 
by  Mr.  Jefferson,  was  jealous  of  Federal  encroachment,  and 
watchful  of  State  rights.  The  embargo  was  the  utmost  stretch 
of  Federal  encroachment,  in  open  contempt  of  the  wishes  of 
the  commercial  States.  Democracy  was  the  guardian  of  “free 
:rade,”  the  boasted  champion  (before  and  after  the  embargo) 
of  “ sailors’  rights.”  The  embargo  annihilated  commerce, 
md  thus  prohibited  the  avocation  of  the  sailor!  Democracy 
oad  claimed,  through  Mr.  Jefferson,  “ the  equal  rights  of 
overy  citizen  in  his  person  and  property r and  their  'manage- 
ment''' The  embargo  singled  out  a most  important  class  of 
iitizens,  while  in  the  act  of  adding,  beyond  any  ancient  or 
nodern  precedent,  to  the  wealth  of  their  nation,  wrested  “ the 
nanagement  of  their  property”  out  of  their  hands,  prohibited 
;heir  lawful  and  honorable  business,  and  condemned  their 
oroperty — their  shipping,  richly  laden  with  their  country’s 
oroduee — to  rot  at  their  own  wharves. 

And  what  was  the  pretext  for  the  embargo  ? The  rival 
edicts  and  contending  fleets  of  France  and  England  had 
oerpetrated  some  depredations  on  our  commerce,  for  which 
ve  had  obtained  no  redress  or  security,  to  the  possible  amount 
)f  five  or  ten  per  cent,  of  the  nett  profits  of  our  commerce, 
ifter  paying  a high  insurance.  Did  our  merchants,  the  direct 
sufferers  under  these  depredations,  desire  the  protection  of 
tn  embargo?  Not  they!  With  all  their  united  influence  of 
petition,  remonstrance,  and  suffrage,  they  protested  against  it. 
They  even  contested  the  constitutionality  of  the  embargo  in 
he  Federal  courts.  They  pleaded  that  the  power  “ to  regu- 
ate  commerce”  was  not  a power  to  annihilate  it.f  The 


* It  was  commonly  understood  at  the  time,  that  the  embargo  policy  did  not 
riginate  with  Mr.  Jefferson,  but  was  urged  upon  him  by  the  extreme  South, 
'his  was  the  apology  of  his  partisans  in  the  Northern  and  Eastern  States, 
t The  petitions  to  Congress  to  abolish  the  interstate  slave  trade,  under  this  same 
lause  of  the  Constitution,  have  been  successfully  parried  by  this  plea,  which  did  not 
uffice  for  the  Northern  merchants.  Our  constitutional  expounders  would  have  us 
elieve  that  Congress  has  power  to  annihilate  all  commerce  except  the  traffic  in  slaves! 
3 it  not  time  to  distrust  such  expositors  ? 


326 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


defense  of  the  Government  was,  not  that  commerce  was  not 
annihilated  (for  not  a coasting  packet  might  navigate  Long 
Island  Sound !)  but  that  the  power  to  regulate  commerce  did, 
involve  the  power  of  its  annihilation.  And  the  Federal  Courts 
sustained  the  Federal  Administration.  Thus  Northern  com- 
merce was  destroyed,  to  protect  it  from  petty  depredations! 
As  a measure  of  retaliation  or  coercion  against  France  and 
England,  the  embargo  could  never  have  been  supposed  to  be 
of  any  value. 

The  theory  of  political  economy  then  in  vogue  at  the  South, 
adopted  by  the  administration  party,  and  promulgated  through 
all  its  presses,  bears  testimony  that  the  protection  of  Northern 
commerce  from  Eui’opean  depredation  was  not  (as  it  could  not 
have  been)  the  object  of  the  embargo.  The  theory  was  that 
commerce  is  corrupting — that  the  spirit  of  commerce  is  the 
spirit  of  cupidity  and  subversive  of  the  spirit  of  freedom — 
that  “great  commercial  cities  are  great  sores”  upon  the  body 
politic — that  the  concentration  of  capital  is  dangerous  in  a 
republic — that  independency  of  foreign  nations  requires  us  to 
be  agriculturists  and  manufacturers,  not  merchants  — and 
that,  like  the  Chinese,  we  should  stay  at  home,  and  let  foreign 
nations  who  want  our  products  come  after  them.  By  this 
teaching,  a jealousy  against  merchants  and  commerce  was 
fostered,  even  among  the  yeomanry  and  mechanics  of  the 
North.  Whatever  of  plausibility  or  mixture  of  truth  there 
may  have  been  in  this  philosophy,  its  propagation  by  the 
slaveholders  at  this  juncture  throws  light  upon  their  policy, 
and  confirms  the  conclusion  that  the  embargo  and  non-inter- 
course  policy  was  designed  to  cripple  and  destroy,  instead  of 
protecting  and  fostering,  Northern  commerce.  Nor  can  we 
overlook  the  coincidence  by  which  this  visitation  was  inflicted 
upon  the  North,  almost  simultaneously  with  the  abolition  of 
the  African  slave  trade,  and  the  explosion  and  defeat  of  the 
great  South-Western  Conspiracy  under  Aaron  Burr,  by  the 
disclosures  of  a citizen  of  New  England.  The  embargo  was 
laid  in  December,  1807,  and  was  continued  till  March,  1809 
when  it  was  exchanged  for  an  act  of  non-intercourse  witl 


SLAVERY  AKD  FREEDOM. 


327 


England  and  France.  In  this  policy  the  administration  was 
inexpectedly  sustained  by  an  influential  statesman  of  the 
North,  the  distinguished  senator  from  Massachusetts,*  who 
orefaced  his  vote  with  this  remarkable  argument — “ The  Presi- 
dent has  recommended  it.  I would  not  deliberate : — I would 
ict.”  He  was  soon  after  named  Minister  to  Russia,  and  was 
ilmost  constantly  in  Executive  employ,  till,  having  been  made 
Secretary  of  State  under  Mr.  Monroe  (equivalent  then  to 
romination  as  his  successor),  he  came  into  the  Presidency  in 
L825,  with  the  aid  of  Mr.  Clay,  whom  he  appointed  Secretary 
}f  State,  and  with  whom  he  administered  the  Government  in 
Re  manner  already  shown.  From  the  date  of  that  appoint- 
ment to  Russia  it  has  been  evident  that  Presidential  patron- 
ige,  the  gift  of  the  slaveholders,  is  an  over-match  for  any 
lold  the  free  States  may  have  upon  the  most  gifted. of  their 
sons. 

The  non-intercourse  with  France  was  terminated  in  1810. 
That  with  Great  Britain  was  continued,  including  a second 
embargo  of  two  months,  till  the  declaration  of  war  by  Con- 
gress against  that  country,  in  June,  1812.  From  the  begin- 
ning of  the  first  embargo,  therefore,  in  Dec.,  1807,  until  the 
peace  of  Dec.,  1814  (not  available  to  the  ship-owners  until  the 
opening  of  navigation  in  the  spring  of  1815),  the  commerce 
of  the  free  States  was  either  totally  prohibited,  or  rendered 
of  little  pecuniary  value.  A general  conflagration  among  the 
.varehouses  and  shipping  of  the  free  States — all  things  con- 
sidered— would  scarcely  have  inflicted  so  great  a calamity, 
oould  the  merchants  have  been  then  left  at  liberty  to  repair 
-heir  losses  by  resuming  their  business. 

In  1811,  the  charter  of  the  old  National  Bank  expired,  and 


* J olm  Quincy  Adams.  "W e are  not  at  liberty  to  suppress  so  instructive  an  incident 
n the  history  of  this  great  man  and  of  the  country.  The  remarkable  independence 
aid  signal  services  of  Mr.  Adams,  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  after  having  been 
ejected  from  the  Presidency  to  make  room  for  a slaveholder,  "will  always  be  regarded 
he  brightest  portion  of  his  political  life.  A similar  destiny  may  be  claimed,  per- 
laps,  to  have  had  a similar  effect  upon  Mr.  Van  Buren — a lesson  to  be  pondered  by 
hose  who  shall  succeed  them. 


328 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


was  not  permitted  the  dominant  slave  power  to  be  renewed 
on  the  alleged  ground  that  a national  bank  was  unconstitu' 
tional,  a consideration  not  discovered  when  it  was  chartered 
The  real  reason  was  that  the  South  had  become  bankrupt,  a 
it  periodically  does,  as  often  generally  as  once  in  ten  or  fifteei 
years,  throwing  off  the  greater  part  of  its  indebtedness  upoi 
its  creditors  in  some  other  conynunity.  No  country  cultiva 
ted  by  slave  labor  does  otherwise.  The  British  West  Indies 
under  the  slave  system,  was  always  a burthen  to  the  merchant.: 
and  bankers  of  England,  in  the  long  run,  however  profitabli 
their  custom  might  appear  to  be  for  a season.  The  slave  sys 
tern  never  supports  itself  for  any  great  length  of  time  in  con 
tinuation.  The  periodical  collapse  must  inevitably  come.  It 
old  colonial  times,  the  creditors  of  the  South  were  chiefly  ii 
England,  and  the  South  went  into  the  Revolution  of  1776  (ii 
despite  of  her  inherent  and  prevalent  toryism)  for  the  purpose 
mainly,  of  wiping  out  the  old  score.  But  since  the  revolu 
tion,  the  northern  cities  of  New  York,  Philadelphia  and  Bos 
ton  have  shared  largely  in  the  honors  and  emoluments  oil 
southern  custom.  The  result  came  upon  them  in  company 
with  other  calamities,  in  1811.  But  along  with  the  embarg< 
and  non-intercourse,  it  greatly  assisted  the  South  to  regain 
in  a pecuniary  view,  her  endangered  balance  of  power.  A1 
most  the  sum  total  of  her  indebtedness  to  the  North  was  nov 
to  be  dexterously  shifted  from  one  scale  to  the  other,  wit! 
the  double  effect  of  relieving  the  South  of  the  same  weigh 
that  was  to  be  thrown  upon  the  North.  In  many  ways  th< 
demise  of  the  National  Bank  was  exceedingly  opportune  tc 
them  at  this  juncture.  The  South  had  got  out  of  the  banl 
in  the  shape  of  loans,  all  it  could,  and  southern  securities 
Avere  now  in  bad  odor  with  the  directors,  while  northern  pa 
per  was  discounted  freely,  and  the  bank  was  a financial  assist 
ant  of  the  northern  merchants.  More  than  this.  The  Banl 
was  the  agent  employed  by  the  North  to  collect  her  debts  a 
the  South.  What  could  the  South  noAV  want  of  the  bank1 
A National  Bank  was  unconstitutional  of  course,  and  hac 
leave  to  be  interred.  In  mourning  over  the  loss  of  their  bank 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


329 


nd  the  depredations  of  the  non-intercourse  and  embargo, 
he  attention  of  the  northern  merchants  would  be  diverted, 
a a measure,  from  the  direct  losses  they  sustained  from  the 
idebtedness  of  the  South.  The  greater  the  smoke  and  the 
lore  scattered  the  fires,  the  better  chance  for  pillage,  and  the 
jss  fear  of  detection. 

Calamities  seldom  come  singly,  and  crime  is  the  precursor 
f crime.  The  slave  power  now  demanded  a war.  Unhap- 
iily  a pretext  was  at  hand.  The  British  “Orders  in  Council” 
f Nov.,  1807,  prohibiting  all  neutral  trade  with  France  and 
er  allies,  were  still  in  force,  though  there  was  a prospect  that 
ley  would  soon  be  repealed.  Deserters  from  the  British 
avy,  who  had  found  a more  lucrative  and  pleasant  employ 
a board  American  vessels,  both  national  and  mercantile, 
ad  been  not  unfrequently  demanded  and  reclaimed  by  the 
ritish  commanders.  On  one  occasion,  the  demand  had  been 
:fused,  but  enforced.  The  British  ship  of  war  Leopard  had 
red  into  the  American  frigate  Chesapeake,  killed  three  men, 
id  wounded  eighteen,  after  which  the  seamen  claimed  were 
ven  up.  On  investigation,  it  appeared  that  three  of  them 
ere  American  citizens.  This  event,  which  took  place  in 
■ me,  1807,  had  greatly  excited  the  American  people  at  the 
me,  and  the  impressment  of  seamen  was  still  a subject  of 
c mplaint,  though  the  number  of  actual  impressments  was 
fterwards  admitted  to  have  been  far  less  than  was  believed 
r.d  represented  at  first,  as  very  few  American  seamen  were 
fially  found  missing  from  our  ports.  By  far  the  greater  por- 
tm  of  alleged  impressments  were  cases  of  the  recovery  of 
Irtish  seamen,  who,  from  similarity  of  appearance  and  lan- 
aage,  had  succeeded  in  procuring  American  “ protections  ” 
v passports.  It  was  notorious  that  many  thousands  of  British 
amen  were  thus  certified  to  be  Americans.  This  matter 
us  coming  to  be  understood.  Aside,  therefore,  from  the 
Irtish  Orders  in  Council,  this  country  could  not  have  been 
.agooned  into  a war  with  that  nation.  Nor  was  it  done  at 
r,  without  the  earnest  remonstrance  of  the  maratime  and 
cmmercial  classes,  and  indeed  almost  all  the  people  of  New 


330 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


England,  who  were  the  chief  sufferers  both  from  impressmen 
and  the  “ Orders  in  Council.”  The  South  undertook,  very 
kindly,  the  protection  of  the  North.  “ Free  trade  and  sailors 
rights  ” was  now  the  southern  watchword  : — that  same  “ fret 
trade  ” that  had  been  so  long  denounced  by  the  South  as  the 
bane  of  the  republic,  a national  curse,  and  proscribed  by  non 
intercourse  and  embargo!  Those  same  “sailors’  rights’ 
that  had  been  so  recently  cloven  down  and  annihilated  tn 
the  same  arbitrary  measures  ! The  pretense  of  the  southern 
enemies  of  commerce,  of  caring  for  the  “free  trade  ant 
sailors’  rights”  of  the  commercial  and  hated  North,  was  tot 
flimsy  to  be  plausible.  To  a great  extent  the  thin  disguis< 
was  soon  thrown  off,  and  southern  editors  and  orators  ful 
minated,  in  the  same  paragraphs,  their  anathemas  agains 
New  England  and  Old  England,  avowing  the  determinatioi 
to  chastise  and  humble  them  both,  at  the  same  time,  and  h 
the  same  blow. 

The  war  party  was  led  on  by  John  C.  Calhoun,  of  Soutl 
Carolina,  who  claimed  the  paternity  of  the  measure,  and  drov 
it  furiously  through  both  houses  of  Congress.*  Mr.  Clay  wa 


* Mr.  Madison,  then  President,  recommended  the  war  in  a message  to  Congres:, 
but  his  proverbial  timidity  and  caution  forbid  the  idea  that  he  was  the  author  of  tl 
measure.  Mr.  Calhoun,  as  the  leader  of  the  extreme  Southern  party,  was  common) 
regarded  as  the  real  instigator  of  the  war  message,  and  his  success  in  carrying  tl 
measure,  gave  him  that  decided  and  controlling  influence  over  the  national  council 
which  he  ever  afterwards  retained,  and  under  all  the  successive  administrations  c 
the  government,  till  the  day  of  his  death,  a period  of  thirty-eight  years,  durii 
which  time  he  seldom  failed  of  effecting  the  real , if  not  the  ostensible , objects  of  li 
occult  evolutions,  which  were  little  understood.  Though  charged  with  ficklencs 
he  never  swerved  from  his  one  original  and  single  aim — the  aggrandizement  of  tl 
South  by  the  discomfiture  of  the  North.  He  was  never  more  successful  than  in  tl 
moment  of  complaining  loudly  of  defeat,  and  appearing  to  submit,  reluctantly,  to 
compromise.  Even  the  great  compromiser,  Mr.  Clay,  appeared  to  be  but  an  impl 
ment  in  his  hands.  He  was  charged  with  ambition  for  the  Presidency,  but  in  reali 
he  preferred  to  govern  through  eight  administrations  (and  he  managed  for  ti 
most  part  to  do  so),  rather  than  rule  through  the  brief  period  of  one.  He  had  t) 
faculty  of  governing,  through  their  hopes  or  their  fears,  the  political  party  fro 
which  he  seemed  to  stand  aloof,  as  effectually  as  he  did  the  party  to  which,  for  t 
time  being,  he  seemed  to  belong.  The  Slave  party  was  the  only  party  to  which 
ever  really  adhered.  The  skill  with  which  he  concocted  a new  party,  by  an  al 
ance  of  the  Southern  “ nullifiers,”  of  whom  he  had  been  the  leader,  with  t| 
National  Republicans  of  the  North,  against  whom  he  had  threatened  a civil  war,  jj 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


381 


also  in  favor  of  the  measure.  At  one  stage  of  the  proceed- 
ings, early  in  June,  1812,  a motion  was  made  in  the  Senate 
:o  postpone  the  declaration  of  war  till  the  opening  of  the 
next  session  of  Congress  in  December,  when  the  policy  of  the 
British  Government  would  be  developed.* *  On  this  question 
he  Senate  was  understood  to  be  nearly  equally  divided,  and 
\Ir.  Calhoun,  whose  influence  was  potential  in  both  Houses, 
:xerted  himself  to  defeat  the  motion.  Then  it  was  that, 
ifter  an  adjournment,  a large  number  of  northern  members, 
ncluding  prominent  supporters  of  the  administration,  were 
aid  to  have  surrounded  Mr.  Calhoun  in  the  lobby,  imploring 
dm  to  relent,  and  allow  the  country  a respite  till  December, 
dr.  Calhoun  was  inexorable,  and  by  extraordinary  applian- 
es,  one  or  two  members  were  gained  over  to  his  party,  and 
he  postponement  teas  defeated  in  the  Senate  by  a majority  of  one 
•ote.  This  decided  the  question  of  Avar,  which  was  declared 
i y a vote  of  79  to  49  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  and 
f 19  to  13  in  the  Senate.  In  a few  weeks,  news  arrived,  as 
.ras  expected,  of  the  repeal  of  the  British  Orders  in  Council, 
hus  removing  the  chief  cause  of  the  war.  But  the  object  of 
lie  Calhoun  party  was  gained.  The  nation  was  plunged  into 
war,  in  the  midst  of  the  pecuniary  embarrassments  arising 
:om  a general  southern  bankruptcy,  (the  North  being  the 
reditor)  and  from  the  sudden  demise  of  the  National  Bank, 
lew  England,  at  such  a crisis,  more  than  Old  England,  would 
e the  sufferer  by  the  Avar,  and  the  North  would  be  burdened 
■ith  the  chief  expense  of  the  infliction. 

The  result  of  the  measure,  and  especially  the  manner  in 


epping  out  of  his  new  party  before  he  was  fairly  seated  in  it,  was  mistaken  for 
.price  by  those  who  saw  not  his  object.  It  enabled  him  to  he  either  Whig  or 
emocrat,  as  he  pleased,  to  stand  with  one  foot  in  each  scale,  to  make  either  side 
•eponderate  as  he  chose,  and  become  Secretary  of  State  when  he  wished,  by  the 
■elamations  of  a Senate  whose  party  was,  even  then,  denouncing  him  ! AA’lioever 
■ould  understand  American  politics  from  1812  to  1S50,  must  study  the  political  his- 
ry  of  John  C.  Calhoun. 

* A motion  was  also  made  in  the  House  of  Representatives  to  include  France  in 
e measure,  hut  the  motion  failed.  The  French  had  no  naval  force  to  spare  for 
e coast  of  America,  and  could  do  little  for  the  threatened  chastisement  of  New 
agland. 


832 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


which  the  war  was  conducted  and  terminated,  were  such  a 
to  justify,  fully,  this  account  of  its  object  and  its  origin.  Twc 
commanders,  in  sympathy  with  the  administration,  General 
Hull  and  Smythe,  the  latter  a Virginian,  were  sent,  succes 
sively,  on  expeditions  of  pretended  invasion  of  Canada,  bu 
in  both  instances,  the  enterprise  was  abandoned  when  th 
Canadas  were  apparently  in  their  power.  General  Hull  sur 
rendered  to  the  British,  to  their  great  astonishment.  Th 
whole  country  accused  him  of  treason,  a court-martial  sen 
tenced  him  to  death,  but  he  was  pardoned  by  the  President; 
General  Smythe  “suddenly  retreated,  to  the  great  surprise  o. 
his  troops.”  These  facts,  together  with  the  systematic  an' 
even  skillful  withholding  of  supplies  from  the  forces  unde 
other  commanders,  afterwards, f made  it  perfectly  evident  tha 
the  administration  not  only  never  intended  the  conquest  oi 
Canada,  but  took  special  care  that  no  such  acquisition  of  tei 
ritory  should  add  to  the  number  of  non-slaveholding  State: 
Had  Canada  been  adjacent  to  the  slave  States,  and  adapted  t 
slave  culture,  there  can  be  no  reasonable  doubt  that  it  coul 
have  been  conquered  as  expeditiously  as  were  California  am 
New  Mexico. 

New  England,  in  the  mean  time,  though  compelled  to  fu: 
■nish  largely  to  the  sinews  of  a war  waged,  in  reality,  agains 
herself — New  England,  in  whose  cities  was  the  wealth  tha 
tempted  the  enemy,  and  in  whose  ports  was  the  shipping  tk 
was  endangered — New  England,  whose  militia  were  subjecte 
to  drafts  for  enacting  sham  invasions  of  Canada,  or  massacre 
of  the  Indians,  and  whose  seamen  were  winning  victories  o 
the  western  and  northern  lakes,  and  on  the  Atlantic — Ne1 
England  was  systematically  left  defenseless,  while  her  seapori 


* A defense  of  Gen.  Hull  was,  many  years  afterwards,  published,  in  which  it  w 
claimed  that  he  surrendered  for  want  of  supplies,  and  that  his  course  was  in  accor 
auce  with  the  secret  intentions  of  the  Government  that  so  readily  pardoned  him. 

■(•Asa  specimen  of  these  tactics,  we  notice  that  Virginian  corn  was  sent  in  wago 
to  the  forces  on  the  Canada  frontier,  of  which  only  one  bushel  to  eacli  wagon  loi 
was  delivered  to  the  army,  the  balance  being  consumed  by  the  teams  on  the  journ 
out  and  home ; while  large  supplies  of  northern  corn  might  have  been  purchase 
near  at  hand. 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


333 


re  re  blockaded,  a vast  amount  of  her  shipping  destroyed,  her 
astern  borders  exposed  to  hostile  incursions,  and  the  port  of 
lastine  held  in  possession  of  the  enemy  for  many  months. 
7hen,  under  these  circumstances,  and  after  all  remonstrances 
ad  proved  unavailing,  New  England  statesmen  were  found 
•ho  demanded  that  New  England  resources  and  New  Eng- 
md  militia  should  be  retained  by  the  State  authorities  for 
ome  defense,  the  cry  of  treason  was  raised  against  them, 
hich  has  been  continued  to  the  present  day.* 

The  threat  of  humbling  New  England  was  thus  signally 
ilfilled.  New  England  cowered  under  the  lash  of  the  slave- 
river,  and  has  never  since  adventured  to  lift  up  her  head  in 
ie  national  councils.  Her  most  gifted  Representatives  and 
ienators  find  ample  scope  for  their  powers  in  bowing  to  the 
hhests  of  slavery,  or  only  make  a brief  bluster  of  resistance, 
i quail  the  lower  at  last,  or  be  deserted  by  their  cotton  lords 
; home. 

When  the  war  had  accomplished  its  grand  objects,  when 
1e  bankrupt  Slave  States  had  regained  and  more  than  re- 
fined their  balance  of  power  with  the  North  by  despoiling  it 
('  half  its  remaining  wealth,  after  the  previous  inflictions  of 
nn-intercourse  and  embargo,  when  Old  England  had  been 
sccessfully  employed  to  chastise  and  humble  New  England, 
Hen  insult  had  been  added  to  injury,  and  the  loss  of  honor 
rd  reputation  conjoined  with  the  loss  of  wealth  and  political 
influence,  the  slave  power  was  ready  to  restore  peace.  And 
tis  was  done  without  a single  lisp  of  “free  trade  and  sailors’ 
r>hts.”  Neither  the  treaty,  nor  the  negotiations,  nor  the  in- 
s uctions  from  the  Cabinet  under  which  they  were  conducted, 


The  claims  of  Massachusetts  on  the  Federal  Government,  for  the  services  of 
b militia  under  the  State  authority,  in  defending  her  own  coasts,  at  a time  when 
t Federal  Government  persisted  in  leaving  them  absolutely  defenseless,,  was  after- 
vds  contemptuously  and  insultingly  disallowed,  and  the  very  act  of  this  self- 
dense  is  still  pointed  at  as  evidence  of  “ constructive  treason!”  And  thus  the 
S :e  contributing  most  largely  (in  proportion  to  population  and  territory)  to  the 
Fleral  expenses  during  the  war,  was  compelled  to  defend  itself  by  additional  exer- 
ti  is,  at  its  own  cost,  and  be  branded  with  the  taint  of  treason  to  boot ! Is  it  a 
n-vel  that  the  politicians  of  Massachusetts  became  servile? 


334 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


contained  the  slightest  allusion  to  the  ostensible  grounds  c 
the  war,  or  provided  or  sought  the  least  semblance  of  ar 
security  against  similar  aggressions  in  future.  Thus  ended 
war  of  nearly  three  years,  conducted  at  an  expense  of  near' 
thirty  millions  per  annum,  chiefly  paid  by  the  free  States,  tl 
price  of  their  own  subjugation  and  disgrace — a war  who: 
“ glory  ” has  given  us  two  Presidents,  one  of  them  a slav 
holder,  the  other  a native  Virginian,  and  a steady  support 
of  the  slave  power — a war  that  virtually  enthroned,  from  181 
to  1850,  the  bitter  enemy  of  northern  as  well  as  southern  li 
erty,  John  C.  Calhoun.* 

Free  labor,  ever  bucy-ant  and  recuperative,  had,  howevt 
survived.  The  hardy  yeomanry  of  the  North  had  earm 
their  own  bread  with  their  own  hands,  had  paid  all  the  d 
mands  of  an  oppressive  government,  and  aided  by  the  hi< 
war  prices  of  their  products,  while  consuming  as  little  as  pc 
sible  of  foreign  merchandise,  had  thriftily  maintained  the 
ground.  The  remnant  of  surplus  capital,  in  the  cities,  driv. 
from  its  own  field  of  enterprise,  and  encouraged  by  the  scarci 
of  foreign  fabrics,  had  invested  itself  in  the  manufacture  < 

* The  writer  is  aware  that  his  account  of  the  embargo,  non-intercourse,  and 
of  1812,  will  be  as  distasteful  to  some  of  the  partisans  and  admirers  of  Jeffers 
and  Madison,  as  his  account  of  Washington’s  administration  and  the  Federal  pa 
will  be  to  some  of  their  political  opponents.  But  history  should  be  impartial;  a 
a writer  who  has  religiously  stood  aloof  from  both  parties  may  claim  to  have  si 
passing  events  with  his  own  eyes,  and  may  be  permitted  to  record  them  as  he  1 
apprehended  them.  In  use  of  the  same  liberty,  he  may  further  say  here,  once 
all,  that  since  the  war  of  1812,  as  before,  he  has  found  no  essential  difference,  onl 
whole,  between  the  two  parties.  The  so  called  Republican  or  Democratic  par 
afraid  of  an  aristocracy  of  Northern  capital,  has  thrown  itself  into  the  arms  of ' 
slaveholders.  The  Federal,  National  Republican,  and  Whig  parties,  while  they  h; 
seen  this,  have  also  had  their  slaveholding  allies,  whose  aid  they  could  not  afford 
spare,  and  hence  the  slave  question  has  never  been  made  an  issue  by  those  part . 
When  in  power  they  have  been"  as  servile  as  their  rival.  Neither  of  them  have  bli 
anti-slavery  parties  at  any  period,  nor  otherwise  (at  bottom)  than  aristocratic  part , 
being  all  of  them  governed  by  one  or  the  other  of  the  rival  aristocracies,  North  i 
or  Southern.  A truly  democratic  party  has  never  yet  come  into  power.  The  peer 
have  been  cheated  by  professions  and  names.  Since  the  rise  of  the  Cotton  po’r 
at  the  North,  allied  to  the  Cotton  power  of  the  South,  the  rival  aristocracies  hir 
been  merged  in  one,  and  the  two  political  parties  are  kept  up  as  mere  shams,  to  t- 
vent  a united  rally  of  the  people  against  the  now  united  aristocracy  of  the  coun  , 
represented  by  “ compromise”  legislation  and  “Union  Committees.” 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


335 


jotton  and  woollen  cloths,  of  a coarse  but  substantial  texture. 
But  the  return  of  peace  brought  an  influx  of  foreign  goods, 
tnd  a sudden  redaction  of  prices,  ruinous  to  manufacturers  as 
veil  as  merchants.  Years  were  required  to  repair  these  fresh 
lepredations,  and  the  new  policy  of  free  commerce,  it  was 
bought,  precluded  the  prospeet  that  our  infant  manufactures 
ould  be  sustained.  No  “ protective  tariff”  came  to  their  aid, 
hen.  The  South,  no  longer  fearing  the  seductive  influences 
:f  commerce,  had  become  the  champion  of  “ free  trade.”  The 
forth,  by  this  time,  understood  her  position  too  well  to  bring 
orward  any  measures  of  her  own.  Manufactures  were,  for 
ae  most  part,  abandoned,-  the  manufacturing  villages  were 
eserted,  and  where  absolute  bankruptcy  did  not  prevent,  the 
ttle  remnant  of  capital  was  invested  in  foreign  commerce, 
'he  merchant  who  had  been  compelled  by  southern  policy  to 
arn  manufacturer  during  the  embargo,  the  non-intercourse, 
re  second  embargo,  and  the  war,  while  his  shipping  was 
.ther  rotting  at  his  wharf,  or  had  fallen  into  the  hands  of  the 
•ritish,  was  now  compelled  by  the  new  southern  policy  to  let 
is  factory  and  village  fall  to  decay,  rebuild  again  his  ships, 
ad  commence  merchant  again.  In  a short  time,  the  settled 
lannel  of  northern  capital  and  enterprise  was  again  foreign 
ammerce,  and  a brisk  business  in  that  line  was  again  bring- 
g in  an  influx  of  wealth. 

No  sooner  was  this  witnessed  or  anticipated,  than  another 
uange  came  over  the  political  economists  of  the  South. 
'Free  trade  ” became  a political  heresy,  and  the  doctrine  of 
'.e  Jeffersonian  period,  condemnatory  of  foreign  commerce, 
ad  in  favor  of  domestic  manufactures,  was  suddenly  revived, 
'he  South  wanted  an  increasing  northern  market  for  her  cot- 
in,  and  northern  capital  must  be  forced  to  become  a customer, 
'ae  South  wanted,  likewise,  a duty  on  raw  foreign  cottons 
iat  should  exclude  those  imported  from  South  America. 

1 ae  South  wanted,  more  than  all,  another  opportunity  to  dis- 
;range  and  perplex  her  pecuniary  rival,  the  free  laboring 
-orth.  Not  the  slightest  objection  was  it,  in  her  eye,  that 
sme  hundred  millions  of  northern  capital,  as  our  northern 


336 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


statesmen  demonstrated,  would  have  to  be  sacrificed  by  th 
change.  The  high  tariff  of  1816  was  forced  upon  the  reluc 
tant  North  by  the  same  John  C.  Calhoun  who  had  dictate 
the  war  of  1812.  Northern  capitalists  demurred.  They  de 
sired  no  capricious  change.  The  merchants  had  rebuilt  thei 
ships,  and  wished  for  no  interference  with  their  “ free  trade.: 
Of  the  few  remaining  manufacturers,  some  were  also  merchants 
and  nearly  all  of  them;  with  singular  unanimity,  repudiatei 
the  policy  of  an  artificial  hot-bed  growth  of  manufactures 
predicting,  sagaciously,  the  over  production,  the  reaction,  an 
the  fluctuations  afterwards  realized  by  such  violations  of  th 
law  of  supply  and  demand.  But  the  North  was  overrulec 
Calhoun  again  triumphed.  The  Calcutta  trade  was  annihih 
ted,  and  our  commerce  with  France  and  England  reduced  an 
shorn  of  its  rich  profits,  in  obedience  to  the  new  policy.  Fai 
tory  villages  sprung  up  again  like  mushrooms:  Thousanc 
embarked  in  the  new  business.  Over  competition  and  ovf 
production  ruined  or  crippled  a large  portion  of  them  in  for 
or  five  years,  and  instability  and  uncertainty  became  inscribes 
legibly,  upon  their  edifices  and  their  fabrics.  For  the  dozei 
who  succeeded  and  amassed  wealth,  there  were  to  be  reckone 
hundreds,  if  not  thousands,  who  were  driven  into  penury  an 
oblivion. 

The  same  memorable  era,  1816,  was  marked  by  the  esta 
lishment  of  a second  National  Bank,  and  by  the  same  Sla^ 
Power  that  had  dictated  the  two  embargoes,  the  non-inte 
course,  the  war,  and  the  tariff.  It  was  dictated  by  the  san 
policy  and  to  subserve  the  same  end — the  preservation  of  tl 
balance  of  power  between  free  and  slave  labor,  or  rather,  tl 
ascendency  of  the  latter  over  the  former.  A National  Bar 
was  deemed  unconstitutional  in  1811,  but  it  became  constit 
tional  in  1816,  for  the  South,  after  all  her  depredations  ups 
the  North,  now  condescended  to  become  a borrower  of  nort 
ern  capital ! Mr.  Madison,  in  particular,  whose  constitution 
scruples  were  insuperable,  in  1811,  overcame  them  in  181 
and  not  long  afterwards  became,  it  was  said,  a borrower  frci 
the  National  Bank  of  a large  sum.  Other  slaveholding  state 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


3S7 


len  conferred  upon  the  bank  the  same  honor.  But  it  cost  the 
orthern  banks  and  the  northern  capitalists  and  merchants  a 
evere  money  pressure  of  three  or  four  years  to  spare  suffi- . 
ient  specie  to  get  the  new  National  Bank  under  way.  So 
hat  the  pecuniary  embarrassment  of  1819-20,  arising  from  a 
eaction  of  the  high  tariff  policy,  was  increased  by  the  pro- 
ess  of  re-establishing  a National  Bank,  and  both  burthens 
ill  at  the  same  time  upon  the  free  laboring  North.  The 
eneral  southern  bankruptcy  of  1824,  renewed  and  aggrav- 
ated by  the  southern  cotton  speculation  of  1826,  (an  infa- 
ious  process  of  gambling)  trode  rapidly  upon  the  heels  of 
he  former  inflictions  of  the  Slave  Power.  An  extensive,  not 
} say  general,  bankruptcy  visited  Boston  in  1824,  and  New 
"ork  in  1826,  from  these  joint  causes,  but  chiefly  from  the 
ccumulation  of  southern  debts  to  the  estimated  amount  of 
pwards  of  one  hundred  millions  of  dollars,  of  which,  (as 
fterwards,  in  1837,)  scarcely  five  cents  on  the  dollar  were 
rer  realized. 

Precisely  at  what  date  the  second  United  States  Bank  was 
fectually  pillaged  and  reduced  to  bankruptcy  by  its  slave- 
aiding  customers,  is  not  certainly  known,  but  it  must  have 
3en  at  a very  early  period,  probably  in  1823,  soon  after  its 
aecie  capital  had  been  supplied,  and  chiefly  by  the  over-con- 
:ling  North.  Its  condition  was  for  many  years  concealed, 
prhaps  in  the  vain  hope  of  retrieving  its  fortunes.  At  one 
Ine,  it  is  said,  the  directors,  having  decided  on  making  no 
lore  loans  to  the  bankrupt  South,  adopted  the  policy  of  in- 
oding  the  solvent  North  under  the  same  restriction,  lest 
cense  should  be  taken  at  the  invidious  distinction,  or  the 
f it  of  southern  delinquency  at  the  bank  be  disclosed.  Be 
tis  as  it  may,  it  proved  to  have  been  a rotten  concern  for 
jars,  while  the  public  supposed  it  solvent.  The  Federal 
(>vernment,  as  appointing  a portion  of  the  directors,  comes 
i for  a large  share  in  the 'blame  of  this  shameful  mis-manage- 
r:nt.  The  bank  was  in  the  hands  of  demagogues,  a tool  of 
p Litical  corruption,  and  chiefly  for  the  pecuniary  and  politi- 
cs. emolument  of  the  South  at  the  expense  and  for  the  man- 

22 


338 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


agement  and  subjugation  of  the  North,  purchasing  editors  i 
not  Senators  by  its  loans.  Like  its  predecessors,  it  was  firs- 
robbed  and  then  buried,  and  all  through  the  action  of  th 
Federal  Government,  at  the  dictation  of  the  Slave  Power.  1 
renewal  of  its  charter  was  refused  in  1832,  a fortunate  evenl 
as  it  proved,  though  its  insolvency  was  not  suspected  ther 
It  expired  by  limitation  of  charter  in  1836. 

Free  labor  overcoming  all  its  obstructions,  contrived  a 
length  to  flourish  under  the  tariff  system.  The  manufac 
turing  capitalists  became  first  reconciled  and  then  wedded  t 
the  policy.  Thriving  under  it,  they  sought  no  essentia 
change.  But  northern  labor  had  long  been  held  incompeter 
to  self-direction,  and  had  been  accustomed  to  watch  the  me 
tions  of  the  slave-driver.  It  adventured,  however,  a sligl 
modification  of  the  tariff  in  1832,  yet  not  departing  from  tl 
principle  and  the  policy  upon  which  the  system  was  foundei 
in  1816,  by  Mr.  Calhoun.  This  temerity  was  made  the  pr 
text  for  demanding  a revolution  in  the  policy  of  the  countr 
The  principle  of  a protective  tariff  became  unpopular  at  tl 
South  as  soon  as  it  was  perceived  that  the  free  labor  of  tl 
North  was  thriving  under  it,  and  the  growth  of  this  dissati 
faction  was  well  nigh  simultaneous  with  the  desire  to  inti 
the  second  National  Bank.  The  policy  of  protection  fir 
fastened  upon  the  country  by  Mr.  Calhoun,  was  now  di 
covered  by  Mr.  Calhoun  and  his  party  to  be  an  infraction 
the  constitution,  oppressive  to  the  South,  the  climax  of  poll 
cal  injustice,  and  demanding  a dissolution  of  the  Union,  u 
less  speedily  laid  aside.  After  stretching  the  exercise  of  tl 
powers  of  the  Federal  Government  to  the  highest  degree,  1 
embargoes,  war,  tariff,  and  National  Bank,  the  South  nc 
hoisted  again  the  flag  of  “ State  Rights.”  A State  Conve 
tion  of  South  Carolina,  under  the  influence  of  Mr.  Calhou 
declared  the  tariff  acts  unconstitutional,  null  and  void,  th. 
duties  should  not  be  paid,  and  that  if  the  General  Govei- 
ment  attempted  to  enforce  the  claim,  the  state  would  wit- 
draw  from  the  Union.  President  Jackson  could  do  no  1(3 
than  repel  this  demand,  but  through  the  intervention  of  A. 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


339 


Clay,  a former  champion  of  the  protective  policy,  a compro- 
mise was  made,  by  which  the  duties  were  gradually  reduced 
till  1843,  when  they  were  to  sink  to  the  general  level  of  20 
per  cent.,  which  was  accounted  the  revenue  standard.  In 
recent  debates  in  the  Senate  concerning  the  Mexican  war, 
Mr.  Webster  of  Massachusetts,  representing  the  cotton  manu- 
facturers of  that  state,  reminded  southern  Senators  that  the 
expenses  of  such  a war  would  require  an  additional  tariff.  At 
this  there  was  no  demur, — not  even  from  Mr.  Calhoun ; and 
it  is  understood  that  the  prospect  of  a high  tariff  reconciled 
the  manufacturing  capitalists  of  New  England  to  that  iniqui- 
tous war. 

Thus  Slavery  controls  all  the  leading  measures  of  the  na- 
tion and  moulds  its  political  economy, — quite  as  remarkable 
for  its  real  and  inflexible  constancy  as  for  its  apparently  ca- 
pricious change.  A comparison  of  dates,  as  before  hinted, 
will  show  how  exactly  all  these  changes  have  corresponded 
and  chimed  in  with  the  more  direct  and  palpable  action  of 
the  Federal  Government  in  support  of  slavery.  Whenever 
such  direct  action,  by  the  Government  or  by  combinations,  has 
been  suspended,  a more  active  control  and  a more  rapid 
change  of  general  measures  has  supplied  the  deficiency.  And 
when  the  general  policy  of  the  country  has  been  for  any  length 
of  time  undisturbed,  it  has  been  because  more  direct  measures 
in  support  of  slavery  have  been  in  progress.  Thus,  from  1807, 
on  the  explosion  of  the  Southern  and  Western  Conspiracy, 
till  the  first  armed  invasion  of  Texas,  in  1819,  the  slave  in- 
terest was  sufficiently  promoted  by  embargoes,  non-intercourse, 
war,  tariff,  the  destruction  of  the  first  National  Bank,  and  the 
establishment  of  the  second.  So,  likewise,  from  1836  to  1850, 
while  so  much  direct  action  in  favor  of  slavery  has  been  wit- 
nessed, the  questions  of  tariffs  and  banks  have  been  left  com- 
oaratively  undisturbed. 

With  equal  skill  and  tact  has  the  slave  power  contrived  to 
ceep  up  two  political  parties,  extending  through  the  North 
md  the  South,  on  the  most  fallacious  and  deceptive  issues,  or 
ipon  scarcely  any  issue  at  all.  By  this  means  she  diverts  atten- 


340 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


tion  from  the  real  to  the  merely  nominal  issues  before  the 
country,  while  by  controlling  both  parties,  she  secures  her 
ends  through  the  ascendency  of  either,  makes  the  one  a check 
upon  the  other,  and  manages  them  through  fear  or  through 
hope. 

THE  STATE  GOVERNMENTS. 

This  chapter  on  the  action  of  the  Federal  Government  in  support  of 
slavery,  might  be  appropriately  followed  by  an  account  of  the  action  of  the 
State  Governments,  even  at  the  North,  in  a similar  direction.  Our  limits 
forbid  us  to  enter  into  these  details.  Suffice  it  to  say  that  most  of  the  free 
States  are  disgraced  by  constitutional  or  legislative  provisions  discriminating, 
invidiously,  between  white  and  colored  citizens,  and  depriving  the  latter  of 
their  equal  rights  of  suffrage  and  eligibility  to  office.  Colored  citizens  of 
the  free  States,  employed  on  board  ships  visiting  the  South,  are  subject  to 
seizure  and  imprisonment,  in  violation  of  their  constitutional  rights.  An 
effort  was  made  by  Massachusetts  to  obtain  a legal  redress  of  these  grie- 
vances in  the  courts  of  South  Carolina  and  Louisiana.  But  her  Commis- 
sioners, Messrs.  Hoare  and  Hubbard,  were  ejected  from  Charleston  and 
New  Orleans  under  threats  of  violence,  and  Massachusetts  submits  to  the 
insult.  In  Ohio  there  were  laws  enacted  designed  to  prevent  the  settlement 
of  colored  citizens  in  that  State.  In  Connecticut  a law  was  passed  pro- 
hibiting schools  for  teaching  colored  pupils.  But  these  laws  of  Ohio  and 
Connecticut  have  been  repealed.  Both  the  enactment  and  the  repeal  of 
these  two  laws — it  may  be  proper  to  say — took  place  during  the  present 
agitation  of  the  slave  question  by  abolitionists. 

We  have  carefully  confined  ourselves  in  these  chapters  (as  in  the  preceding 
ones  concerning  “ the  • Position  of  the  Churches  ”)  to  the  course  that  has 
been  pursued  in  respect  to  slavery , disconnected  from  any  controversies 
about  the  measures  of  “modern  abolitionists,”  or  statements  concerning  the 
opposition  raised  against  them.  And  we  deem  it  no  vain  repetition  to  pro- 
pound again,  here,  the  inquiry — Is  it  credible  that  those  who  hold  such  a 
position  in  respect  to  slavery  could  have  been  otherwise  than  annoyed  and 
offended  by  any  earnest  efforts  for  its  immediate  and  unconditional  aboli- 
tion I 

Some  further  light  on  this  question  may  be  afforded  in  our  next  chapter 
exhibiting  a movement  in  which  the  prominent  actors,  in  political  anc 
ecclesiastical  life,  combined  their  forces  and  commingled  their  labors. 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


841 


CHAPTER  XXIX. 

COLONIZATION  SOCIETY. 

Originated  with  Slaveholders— Object — Discourages  emancipation,  yet  professes  to 
favor  it — Violates  its  own  Constitution,  by  denying  to  the  people  of  color  their 
rights  of  citizenship — Justifies  Slavery— Condemns  emancipation— Slanders  the 
people  of  color— Justifies  oppression— Declares  prejudice  against  color  invincible 
— Pledged,  in  advance,  to  oppose  Abolition  Societies — The  representatives  of  the 
leading  political  and  ecclesiastical  influences  of  the  country — Its  leaders  in  sympa- 
thy with  the  Fugitive  Slave  Bill— Meeting  at  Boston— False  pretenses  of  cheeking 
the  African  slave  trade  and  evangelizing  Africa. 

The  American  Colonization  Society,  -with  its  auxiliaries,  is 
sustained  by  the  leading  influences  in  the  Church  and  in  the 
State.  The  position  of  these,  in  respect  to  American  Slavery, 
has  already  been  shown.  It  would  be  strange  if  the  Society 
should  differ  widely  from  the  course  and  policy  of  those  who 
originated  it,  and  who  give  shape  to  its  measures.  Its  two- 
fold character  of  ecclesiastical  and  political  gives  it  a wide 
range.  It  takes  its  place  in  the  list  of  our  religious  anniver- 
saries, is  advocated  in  the  pulpit  on  the  Sabbath,  is  claimed  to 
be  a missionary  institution,  asks  patronage  and  accepts  the 
widow’s  mite  as  a benevolent  enterprise ; yet  it  proposes  to 
build  up  an  empire  in  Africa ; for  many  years  it  superintended 
a colonial  government  in  Liberia  ;*  has  received  indirect  aid 
from  Congress,  and  large  funds  from  State  legislatures.  Its 
friends  give  a two-fold  account  of  its  origin.  Sometimes  they 
say  it  was  devised  and  planned  by  Rev.  Samuel  J.  Mills,  a 
young  minister  earnestly  intent  on  evangelizing  Africa.  Some- 


* The  Colony  has  at  length  become  independent  of  the  Society,  yet  the  Soeiety 
continues,  in  other  respects,  its  operations. 


342 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


times  they  commend  it  as  having  originated  in  the  political 
sagacity  of  popular  statesmen,  Mr.  Jefferson,  Mr.  Clay,  Mr.i 
Mercer,  and  Mr.  Madison,  not  remarkable,  all  of  them,  for 
evangelizing  enterprise.  The  authentic  account  appears  to  be 
as  follows : 

1.  Origin. — The  entire  movement  grew  out  of  an  alarm 
caused  by  an  attempted  slave  insurrection.  Hence  the  effort 
of  the  Virginia  Legislature  to  induce  Congress  to  colonize  free 
blacks.  This  measure  failing,  a society  for  the  purpose  was 
formed. 

In  December,  1816,  the  Legislature  of  Virginia  passed  a 
resolution  requesting  the  Governor  to  correspond  with  the 
President  of  the  United  States,  for  the  purpose  of  obtaining 
territory  in  Africa  or  elsewhere  for  colonizing  free  people 
of  color  and  those  who  might  afterwards  become  free. 

A few  days  afterwards  a meeting  was  held  in  Washington 
City  composed  of  southern  gentlemen,  at  which  Judge  Wash- 
ington, a slaveholder  and  slave-vender,  presided,  and  Henry 
Clay  and  Mr.  Randolph,  slaveholders,  made  speeches.  The 
result  was  the  organization  of  the  American  Colonization 
Society.  Judge  Washington  was  chosen  President.  Seven- 
teen Vice-Presidents-  were  chosen,  twelve  of  whom  were  in 
the  slave  states,  and  probably  slaveholders.  The  twelve  man- 
agers were  also  slaveholders. 

2.  Object. — “The  object  to  which  its  attention  is  to  be 
exclusively  directed,  is  to  promote  and  execute  a plan  for  col- 
onizing, (with  their  consent)  the  free  people  of  color  residing 
in  our  country  in  Africa,  or  such  other  place  as  Congress  shall 
deem  most  expedient.  And  the  Society  shall  act  to  effect  this 
object  in  co-operation  with  the  General  Government  and  such 
of  the  States  as  may  adopt  regulations  on  the  subject.” — Con. 
of  the  Society , Art.  II. 

The  “ exclusive"  object  here  specified  precludes  and  denies 
the  claim  of  missionary  and  anti-slavery  objects  afterward; 
set  up  at  the  North  to  obtain  patronage.  The  reference  to 
the  General  and  State  Governments  shows  that  the  “ object ' 
was  such  as  those  governments  were  expected  to  favor.  Th 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


343 


Constitution  has  no  Preamble  with  statements  of  reasons  or 
motives  for  Colonization,  and  gives  no  hints  whether  its  ope- 
rations were  expected  to  facilitate  emancipation  or  strengthen 
slavery.  This  ambiguity  has  enabled  its  advocates  to  urge 
one  class  of  arguments  at  the  North  and  an  opposite  class  at 
the  South,  and  obtain  funds  from  both  the  friends  and  the 
enemies  of  slavery.  But  the  real  object  may  be  known 
from  its  operations,  of  which  we  present  a specimen.  The 
Maryland  Colonization  Society,  auxiliary  to  the  American, 
received  large  funds  from  the  State  Legislature  with  which 
it  transported  to  Africa,  in  1834,  “ two  ship  loads  of  colored 
people,  who  were  coerced  as  truly  as  if  it  had  been  done  with 
a cart-whip.”  So  said  Rev.  R.  J.  Breckenridge  D.D.,  a mem- 
ber of  the  American  Colonization  Society,  at  its  annual  meet- 
ing, the  same  year.  This  policy  the  gentleman  censured  at 
the  time,  but  has  since  openly  defended  it,  as  did  likewise 
Mr.  Brodnax,  in  the  Legislature  of  Virginia,  when  a bill  was 
under  discussion,  making  appropriations  to  the  same  object. 
“ It  is  idle,”  said  Mr.  Brodnax,  “to  talk  about  not  resorting 
to  force.  Everybody  must  look  to  the  introduction  of  force 
of  some  kind  or  other.  If  the  free  negroes  are  willing  to  go, 
they  will  go.  If  not,  they  must  be  compelled  to  go.”  There 
was  a clause  in  the  bill  for  compulsory  transportation.  This 
was,  indeed,  stricken  out  to  save  appearances,  but  the  end 
was  nevertheless  reached,  by  menaces,  and  ill  treatment. 

The  desired  effects  of  colonization  have  been  abundantly 
stated  in  the  publications  of  the  Society,  and  the  speeches 
and  writings  of  its  members. 

“ The  execution  of  this  scheme  would  augment,  instead  of  diminish,  the 
value  of  the  property  left  behind.” — African  Repository  (the  Society’s 
organ),  Vol.  I.,  p.  227. 

“ By  removing  the  most  fruitful  source  of  discontent  (free  blacks)  from 
among  our  slaves,  we  should  render  them  more  industrious  and  attentive  to 
our  commands.” — Address  Putnam  Co.  Geo.  Col.  Soc. 

“ The  tendency  of  the  scheme,  and  one  of  its  objects,  is  to  secure 
slaveholders  and  the  whole  Southern  country  against  certain  evil  conse- 
quences growing  out  of  the  present  three-fold  mixture  of  our  population.” — 
Address  of  a Virginia  Col.  Soc.,  Af.  Rep.,  IV.,  274. 


344 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


“ By  removing  these  people  (free  blacks)  we  rid  ourselves  of  a large 
party  who  will  always  be  ready  to  assist  our  slaves  in  any  mischievous 
design  they  might  conceive.” — Af.  Rep.,  I.,  176. 

“ By  thus  repressing  the  increase  of  blacks,  the  white  population  would 
be  enabled  to  reach,  and  soon  overtake  them : the  consequence  would  be 
security.” — Af.  Rep.,  IV.,  344. 

It  would  be  easy  to  fill  a long  chapter  with  testimonies  to 
this  single  point.  We  are  warranted,  therefore,  in  saying 
that  the  grand  object  of  the  Colonization  Society  is  the  in- 
creased profitableness  and  security  of  slavery. 

3.  It  discourages  emancipation. — The  Colonization  So- 
ciety has  been  patronized  at  the  North,  under  the  idea,  held 
up  by  its  agents,  that  it  encourages  and  assists  slaveholders  to 
emancipate  and  colonize  their  slaves.  It  is  true  that  some 
emancipations  have  been  made  in  connection  with  coloniza- 
tion. But  the  efforts  of  the  Society  have  been  chiefly  directed 
to  the  colonization  of  the  free.  And  it  is  found  that  the  ratio 
of  emancipations,  since  the  Society  was  formed,  has  greatly 
decreased,  on  the  whole.  Neither  Judge  Washington,  Henry 
Clay,  Mr.  Madison,  nor  Mr.  Carroll,  slaveholding  Presidents 
of  the  Society,  have  ever  emancipated  and  colonized  a single 
slave,  though  Judge  Washington  sold  fifty-four  at  one  time, 
to  be  sent  to  New  Orleans  ! The  whole  amount  of  the  colon- 
ization of  manumitted  slaves,  in  eighteen  years,  ending  in 
1835,  was  eight  hundred  and  nine , equal  to  the  increase  of  slave 
population  for  five  days  and  a half  !'x‘  It  is  not  known 
that  the  process  has  been  more  rapid  since. 

And  yet,  colonization  was  constantly  held  up,  then  and  after- 
wards, as  the  only  safe  and  proper  mode  of  emancipation,  thus 
quieting  the  consciences  of  those  who  thought  they  could  not 
spare  (or  who,  in  fact,  could  not  command)  the  additional  ex- 
penses of  transportation  to  Africa. 

“ Colonization  is  the  only  possible  mode  of  emancipation  at  once  safe 
and  rational.” — Speech  of  Mr.  Custiss,  13 tli  An.  Report. 


* Up  to  about  this  time  the  funds  raised  by  the  Society  amounted  to  §220,449, 
and  it  had  incurred  a debt  of  $45,645,  making  an  expenditure  of  $266,094. — Jay's 
Inquiry,  p.  78. 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


345 


“ Colonization  is  the  only  expedient  by  which  these  evils  (of  slavery) 
can  be  mitigated.” — Speech  of  J.  A.  Dix,  Af.  Rep.,  IV.,  108. 

“ To  this  country  it  offers  the  only  possible  means  of  gradually  ridding 
ourselves  of  a mighty  evil.” — 1st  Rep.  N.  Y.  Col.  Soc. 

“ I would  urge  this  system  of  Colonization,  as  the  only  rational  plan  that 
has  yet  been  suggested  for  relieving  our  Southern  brethren  of  the  curse  of 
slavery.” — Speech  of  Chancellor  Walworth. 

A moderate  use  of  common  sense  and  of  the  rudiments  of 
arithmetic  should  have  sufficed  to  dispel  the  delusion  of  ter- 
minating American  Slavery  by  the  colonization  of  the  slaves 
to  Africa.  It  is  astonishing  how  such  a project  could  have 
imposed  itself  upon  the  credulity  of  the  shrewd  and  calcula- 
ting people  of  the  North.  Emancipation  on  the  soil  had  been 
the  policy  of  the  northern  and  eastern  states.  No  other  pro- 
cess of  abolishing  slavery  had  ever  been  known  or  attempted 
anywhere.  The  revolutionary  fathers,  who  had  sought  and 
expected  the  abolition  of  slavery,  had  expected  it  in  no  other 
way.  Before  the  forming  of  the  Colonization  Society  in 
1816,  no  friend  of  freedom  advocated  any  other  method. 
But  in  a few  brief  years  the  propagandists  of  colonization  had 
saturated  the  public  mind  with  their  new  and  whimsical 
dogma.  From  the  pulpit,  from  the  forum,  from  the  press, 
from  halls  of  legislation,  and  by  itinerating  agents,  the  propo- 
sition was  continuously* reiterated,  with  all  the  solemnity  of 
an  oracle,  that  emancipation  and  colonization  must,  of  neces- 
sity, go  hand  in  hand ! The  idea  came,  at  length,  to  be  re- 
garded with  the  reverence  due  to  a self-evident  truth,  and  to 
question  it  was  to  incur  suspicion  of  insanity. 

The  influence  of  this  sentiment  upon  the  process  of  emanci- 
pation cannot  be  doubtful.  Emancipations  on  the  soil  had 
been  constantly  going  on,  at  the  South,  till  the  doctrine  was 
proclaimed  that  the  free  people  of  color,  as  a nuisance,  must 
be  removed  out  of  the  country,  and  that  future  emancipations 
and  transportations  must  go  hand  in  hand.  To  emancipate 
and  colonize,  even  when  practicable,  was  a double  burden, 
and  all  other  emancipation  was  now,  by  the  new  formed  public 
sentiment,  proscribed. 


846 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


Equally  and  necessarily  proscriptive  was  the  same  doctrine 
against  all  plans  and  efforts  to  procure  a general  abolition  of- 
slavery  on  the  soil,  and  no  other  general  abolition  would  b( 
practicable.  It  might  have  been  predicted,  beforehand,  tha' 
the  influence  of  the  Colonization  Society  would  be  arrayec 
against  any  earnest  efforts  for  the  abolition  of  slavery.  I 
could  not  be  otherwise,  while  the  Society  held  the  languagt 
we  have  quoted,  insisting  that  colonization  was  the  onli 
method  of  emancipation.  And  this  has  involved  the  Societj 
in  the  positions  hereafter  specified. 

4.  In  violation  of  its  own  Constitution,  it  denies  tc 

THE  FREE  PEOPLE  OF  COLOR  THEIR  ESSENTIAL  RIGHTS  OF  RESI 
DENCE  IN  THE  LAND  OF  THEIR  BIRTH,  AND  IT  DENIES  THI 
RIGHT  OF  THE  SLAVE  TO  EMANCIPATION  ON  THE  SOIL.  This  i: 
proved  by  the  course  of  the  Maryland  and  Virginia  auxiliaries 
and  also  by  the  speeches  of  Dr.  Breckenridge  and  Mr.  Brod 
nax,  already  quoted.  We  add  another  testimony  from  th< 
highest  authority,  and  of  a recent  date  : 

Hon.  Henry  Clay,  in  his  recent  letter  to  Richard  Pindell,  (see  Nei 
York  Tribune,  March  10th,  1849,)  “ after  full  and  deliberate  consideration 
of  the  subject,”  lays  it  down  “ as  an  indispensable  condition  (of  emancipation^ 
that  the  emancipated  slaves  should  be  removed  from  the  State  to  somii 
colony.”  “ The  colonization  of  the  free  blacks,  as  they  successively  arrive 
from  year  to  year,  at  the  age  entitling  them  to  freedom,  I consider  a eondi 
tion  absolutely  indispensable.  Without  it  I would  be  opposed  to  any  schemi 
of  emancipation.”  The  expense  of  this  expatriation  is,  says  Mr.  Clay,  ti 
“ be  defrayed  by  a fund  to  be  raised  from  the  labor  of  each  freed  slave.' 
The  Af.  Repository,  April,  1849,  says,  let  the  North  “show  unto  us  a mori 
excellent  way.”  if  they  can. 

“ In  no  other  way  could  (can)  it  (slavery)  be  removed,  than  by  planting 
colonies  of  free  colored  people  on  the  coast  of  Africa.”  Speech  of'  Rev 
Dr.  Bethune  at  Col.  meeting,  Phila.,  Af.  Rep.,  July,  1846,  p.  232. 

“ He  (the  colored  man)  is  an  exotic  that  does  not  and  cannot  flourish  ii 
American  soil.”  Address  of  Judge  Bullock,  Ky.,  commended  by  editor  oj 
Af.  Rep.,  Ap.  1847,  p.  103. 

“ No  ! There  is  no  place  for  them  in  this  country.  It  is  not  their  land 
and  they  never  can  be  made  at  home  here.  There  are  difficulties  in  th< 
way  which  no  power  of  man  can  remove.”  Af.  Rep.  Nov.,  1846,  p.  348. 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


347 


5.  It  justifies  slavery. 

“ We  hold  their  slaves,  as  we  hold  their  other  property,  sacred."  (Af. 
Rep.  I.,  283.)  “We  know  your  rights,  and  we  respect  them.”  (Ib. 
'II.,  100.)  “It”  (the  Society)  condemns  no  man  because  he  is  a slave- 
older.”  (Ib.  VII.,  200.)  “Acknowledging  the  necessity  by  which  its 
slavery’s)  present  continuance  and  rigorous  provisions  for  its  maintenance, 
re  justified.”  (Ib.  III.,  16.)  “We  believe  that  there  is  not  the  slight- 
st  turpitude  in  holding  slaves,  under  present  circumstances.”  (Ib.  IX.,  4.) 

“ Yot^fcannot  abolish  slavery,  for  God  is  pledged  to  sustain  it.” — Letters 
o Hon.  George  P.  Marsh,  copied  into  Maryland  Colonization  Journal,  Sep- 
ember  6,  1847,  p.  44. 

“ Slavery  in  the  United  States  has  resulted,  and  is  destined  still  more  to 
esult  in  the  permanent  good  and  advancement  of  the  negro  race.” — Letter, 
\c.,  p.  99. 

6.  It  mot  only  discourages  but  condemns  emancipation. 

“ Policy,  and  even  the  voice  of  humanity,  forbid  the  progress  of  manumis- 
ion.”  (Af.  Rep.,  IV.,  268.)  “It  would  be  as  humane  to  throw  them  from 
re  decks  in  the  middle  passage,  as  to  set  them  free  in  our  country.” — Ib. 

V.,  226. 

7.  It  slanders  the  free  people  of  color.  AYithout  do- 
ng this,  and  fostering  prejudice  against  them,  the  scheme  of 
©Ionizing  them  would  have  found  little  or  no  favor. 

“ Free  blacks  are  a greater  nuisance  than  even  slaves  themselves.” — Af. 
^ep.  II.,  189. 

“ This  class  of  persons  is  a curse  and  a contagion  wherever  they  reside.” 
-Ib.  III.,  203. 

“A  class  the  most  corrupt,  depraved,  and  abandoned.” — H.  Clay,  Ib. 

2. 

“An  anomalous  race  of  beings,  the  most  depraved  upon  earth.” — Ib. 
II.,  230. 

“They  constitute  a class  by  themselves,  out  of  which  no  individual  can 
e elevated,  and  below  whieh  none  can  be  depressed.” — Ib.  VI.,  118. 

“ With  some  honorable  exceptions,  the  free  negroes  are,  as  a class,  indo- 
;nt,  vicious,  and  dishonest.” — Memorial  to  Leg.  of  Va.,  Af.  Rep.  Am. 
lol.  Soc.,  Jan.,  1846,  p.  45. 

Speaking  of  the  60,000  free  colored  inhabitants  of  Virginia,  the  above 
remorial  says,  “Worthless  and  more  than  worthless.” — P.  48.* 

* Compare  these  representations  with  the  following: — Says  Mr.  Clay,  “Each 
migrant  is  a missionary,  carrying  with  him  credentials  in  the  holy  cause  of  religion, 
ivilization,  and  free  institutions  /”  And  so  Africa  is  to  be  evangelized  by  sending 
ut  our  nuisances  as  missionaries  ! 


348 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


8.  It  justifies  their  oppression. 

“ Severe  necessity  places  them  (free  negroes)  in  a class  of  degraded  b 
ings.”  (Af.  Rep.,  V.,  238.)  “ This  law,”  (by  which  free  negroes  are  ei 

slaved  unless  they  leave  the  State,)  “ odious  and  unjust  as  it  may,  at  fir 
view,  appear,  &c.,  was  doubtless  dictated  by  sound  policy,  and  its  repe 
would  be  regarded  with  none  by  more  unfeigned  regret  than  by  the  frieni 
of  African  colonization.” — Powhattan  Col.  Soc. 

9.  It  discourages  their  education  and  elevati^st. 

“ If  the  free  people  of  color  were  generally  taught  to  read,  it  might  be  s 
inducement  to  them  to  remain  in  this  country.  We  would  offer  them  r 
such  inducement.” — Southern  Religious  Telegraph,  Presbyterian. 

“ It  must  appear  evident  to  all,  that  every  endeavor  to  divert  the  attentk 
of  the  community,  or  even  a portion  of  the  means  which  the  present  cris 
so  imperatively  calls  for,  from  the  Colonization  Society,  to  measures  calci 
lated  to  bind  the  colored  population  to  this  country,  and  seeking  to  raii 
them  to  a level  with  the  whites,  whether  by  founding  colleges  or  in  any  otht\ 
way,  tends  directly  in  proportion  that  it  succeeds,  to  counteract  and  thwa 
the  whole  plan  of  colonization.” — New  Haven,  Conn.  Religious  Intell 
gencer,  Congregational,  July,  1831. 

This  frank  avowal  discloses  the  cause  of  the  opposite 
made  in  Connecticut,  by  leading  colonizationists,  soon  afteij 
to  the  establishment  of  schools  for  colored  children  and  yout 
in  Canterbury  and  New  Haven.  The  writer  remembers  whe 
colored  children  were  freely  admitted  to  the  public  schools  i 
Connecticut,  and  when  there  were  no  separate  pews  for  ne 
groes  in  the  village  and  country  churches.  The  growth  o 
prejudice  has  kept  equal  pace  with  the  progress,  influenci 
and  popularity  of  the  Colonization  Society. 

10.  It  declares  the  prejudice  against  them  innocen, 
and  incurable.  This  ground  is  assumed  in  self- vindication 
For  if  the  prejudice  be  criminal,  the  Society  is  a transgressoi 
And  if  it  be  cured,  the  enterprise  of  colonization  becomes  a 
abortion. 

“ All  the  prejudices  of  society — prejudices  which  neither  refinement,  no 
argument,  nor  education,  nor  religion  itself  can  subdue — mark  the  people  o 
color,  whether  bond  or  free,  as  the  subjects  of  a degradation  inevitable  an 
incurable." — Address  Conn.  Col.  Soc. 

“ Christianity  cannot  do  for  them  here,  what  it  will  do  for  them  in  Afr 
ca.  This  is  not  the  fault  of  the  colored  man,  nor  of  the  white  man,  but  a 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM.  349 

rdination  of  Providence,  aDd  no  more  to  be  changed  than  the  laws  of  na- 
ire.” — Fifteenth  Annual  Report,  47. 

11.  It  tv as  pledged  in  advance  to  oppose  abolition 

OCIETIES. 

‘‘  The  Society  having  declared  that  it  is  in  no  wise  allied  to  any  Abolition 
■ociety,  in  America  or  elsewhere,  is  ready,  when  there  is  need,  to  pass  a 
ensure  upon  such  Societies  in  America.” — Eleventh  Annual  Report. 

This  was  in  January,  1828,  more  than  four  years  before  the 
rganization  of  the  Massachusetts  Anti-Slavery  Society,  the 
arliest  of  the  11  modern  ” Societies.  There  had  been  no  “ abo- 
rtion Societies  ” in  the  country,  except  those  formed  by  Jay, 
’ranklin,  &c.,  soon  after  the  Eevolutionary  war,  and  which 
rere  now  nearly  or  quite  extinct.  The  possible  resuscitation 
f those  Societies,  or  the  organization  of  similar  ones,  must 
ave  been  the  .contingency  in  view  of  which  this  gratuitous 
ledge  of  “ censure  ” was  given,  in  advance  of  any  knowledge 
f their  particular  measures.  ISTo  reference  to  the  future  and 
nforeseen  “ fanaticism  ” or  “imprudence  ” of  “ modern  abo- 
rtionists,” who  had  not  then  appeared,  can  furnish  an  explan- 
tion  of  this  measure.  Hostility  to  any  efforts  for  the  abolition 
f slavery  is  evident  upon  the  very  face  of  the  declaration. 

Such  was  the  Colonization  Society,  such  its  positions,  and 
uch  its  influence,  at  the  commencement  of  the  present  agita- 
.on  of  the  slave  question.  And  such  they  remain  still, 
’hilanthropists  and  friends  of  the  enslaved  were,  for  a long 
me,  deceived  and  misled  by  it,  regarding  it  as  an  instrument 
)r  the  abolition  of  slavery,  and  some  such  possibly  are  de- 
eived  by  it  still,  though  hundreds  of  thousands  have  deserted 
nd  abjured  it. 

The  Colonization  Society  has  been,  and  still  is,  the  true 
epresentative  of  the  leading  men  in  Church  and  State,  on  the 
ubject  of  slavery.  It  furnishes  the  central  point  of  their 
nited  efforts  on  that  subject,  where  the  political  and  ecclesi- 
stical  elements  controlling  the  Church  and  the  State  (in  the 
lanner  described  in  the  preceding  chapters)  are  conjoined. 
1he  same  statesmen  who  have  controlled  our  Cabinets  and 


350 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


Senates,  the  same  theologians,  professors,  and  doctors  o 
divinity,  who  have  controlled  our  General  Assemblies,  Gene- 
ral Associations,  General  Conferences,  Synods,  Bible  and  Trac 
Societies,  and  Missionary  Boards,  have  come  together  an< 
formed  and  controlled  the  Colonization  Society.  The  sam 
imposing  array  of  honorable  and  reverend  names  are  paradei 
on  the  various  catalogues,  and  their  doings  and  their  polic 
are  the  same.  Posterity  will  award  to  the  one  the  same  prais 
or  blame  that  they  do  to  the  other. 

After  twenty  y-ears’  discussion,  the  course  and  the  characte 
of  the  Colonization  Society  are  not  changed.  Whatever  mat 
be  said  of  other  bodies,  the  increase  of  light,  and  the  diffusio’ 
of  intelligence,  have  made  no  impression  on  the  Colonizatio: 
Society.  It  represents  the -class  of  politicians  and  ecclesias 
tics  resolutely  opposed  to  liberty  and  progress.  Among  it 
leaders  are  the  advocates  and  apologists  of  the  new  Fugitiv' 
Slave  Bill — who  preach  against  the  paramount  claims  o 
“higher  law.”  The  infamous  slave  hunts  resulting  from  th 
so-called  “ compromise  measures,”  seem  to  have  infused  nev 
life  into  it,  and  restored  the  energy  it  exhibited  during  th 
ascendency  of  pro-slavery  riots,  and  the  attempted  legislate 
suppression  of  free  discussion,  from  1834  to  1837,  of  wlncl 
some  account  will  appear  in  the  proper  place. 

The  Massachusetts  Colonization  Society  held  its  Annua 
Meeting  in  Boston,  May  26,  1852.  Rev.  Dr.  Derby,  of  Phila 
delphia,  made  a speech,  in  which  he  insisted  that  the  colorec 
people  can  never  have  their  political  rights  in  this  country 
He  “was  born  in  the  South,  had  been  nursed  by  a slave  woman 
had  seen  the  black  man  under  all  circumstances,  and  in  al 
parts  of  the  United  States,  and  yet  he  had  never  seen  on( 
that  was  a man.” — “ He  dwelt  at  some  length  on  the  grea' 
blessing  American  slavery  is  conferring  on  the  slave,  in  afford 
ing  him  an  opportunity  to  become  acquainted  with  Chris 
tianity,  and  secure  the  salvation  of  his  soul.”  And  yet 
according  to  the  same  speaker,  he  could  never  rise  in  this 
country,  and  must  therefore  be  colonized  to  Africa.  Anion'1 
the  officers  and  prominent  members  of  the  Society  present 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


351 


;i  were  many  supporters  of  Mr.  Webster  and  the  Fugitive 
Slave  law,  and  signers  of  the  celebrated  letter  to  him,  con- 
gratulating him  upon  his  7th  of  March  speech,  in  support  of 
that  bill  of  abominations.”  Among  these  was  Rev.  Dr.  Woods, 
who  pronounced  the  benediction  at  the  close.  “ These  gen- 
:lemen,  grayheaded  Doctors  of  Divinity,  and  cotton  politi- 
cians of  Boston,  thumped  their  canes  right  heartily  at  the 
speech”  of  Dr.  Derby.  Robert  Morris,  Esq.,  a colored  lawyer, 
)f  Boston,  rose  modestly,  and  wished  to  ask  a few  questions, 
out  was  refused.— Vide  N.  Y.  Daily  Tribune , May  28,  1852. 

It  remains  to  say  that  the  pretensions  of  the  Colonization 
Society  of  doing  much  to  evangelize  Africa,  and  to  check  and 
imit  the  slave  trade,  have  been  found  to  be  in  keeping  Avith 
ts  other  pretensions. 

As  late  as  1833  or  ’31,  Rev.  Dr.  Spring  of  New  York,  at  a 
colonization  meeting  in  that  city,  lamented  that  the  Society 
aad  done  nothing  for  the  religious  instruction  of  the  emigrants. 
The  remedy  he  proposed  Avas  the  employment  of  missionaries 
py  the  managers,  acting  as  a Civil  Government,  at  the  expense 
}f  the  colony,  disregarding  the  objection  urged  that  it  would 
oe  (as  he  admitted  it  would)  a “ union  of  Church  and  State.” 
But  his  measure  Avas  not  adopted.  J.  B.  Finney,  Avho  Avas 
sent  out  as  a missionary,  became  Governor  of  the  colony. 
Dn  his  return,  in  1836,  he  told  the  writer  of  this  book  that 
nothing  was  doing  for  the  conversion  of  the  natives.  In  1839, 
Sir.  Wilson,  the  Missionary  of  the  American  Board,  Avhich  is 
lontrolled  by  Colonizationists,  affirmed  that  the  neighborhood 
jf  the  colony  Avas  not  a proper  station  for  a missionary,  and 
hat  remoteness  from  the  settlements  Avas  far  more  desirable. 
See  Missionary  Herald , Sept.,  1839.) 

Rum,  gunpoAvder,  and  spear-pointed  knhres,  have  been 
imong  the  regular  exports  from  this  country  to  the  colony  of 
Liberia.  These  are  sold  to  the  natives,  and  especially  to  the 
slave  traders,  being  the  indispensable  articles  of  their  traffic, 
md  the  causes  of  the  wars  that  furnish  captives  to  be  sold  to 
Fern  as  slaves.  The  slave  trade,  instead  of  being  repressed, 
as  had  been  pretended)  has  been  stimulated  and  encouraged. 


352 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


The  colonists  have  maintained  a regular  traffic  with  them, 
and  have  visited  their  stations  for  that  purpose.  Shackles 
have  been  sold  to  them  at  the  colonial  settlement  at  Mensu- 
rado.  The  pages  even  of  the  African  Repository  (the  So- 
ciety’s official)  bore  testimony,  in  1828,  that  the  trade  was 
increasing.*  In  1837  or  ’38,  Dr.  Goheen,  agent  of  the  So- 
ciety, residing  at  Liberia,  wrote  in  defense  of  the  slave  trade, 
and  his  letters  were  published  without  rebuke  in  the  coloniza- 
tion papers  of  this  country. 

Liberia  has  now  become  an  independent  Government.  The 
political  control  of  the  Colonization  Society  over  it  has  ter- 
minated, but  it  continues  to  busy  itself  with  the  task  (accord- 
ing to  its  own  account)  of  supplying  it  with  “ nuisances  ” whom 
“ Christianity  can  never  elevate  in  this  country”  for  “mis- 
sionaries” and  “statesmen” — to  “ evangelize  the  heathen,  anc 
build  up  an  empire  in  Africa  !” 


* We  have  not  room  for  the  particulars;  but  if  the  reader  will  refer  to  JayY 
Inquiry,  pp.  55  to  61  (sixth  edition),  he  will  find  ample  evidence,  furnished  by  tin 
Colonization  Society  itself,  that  the  boast  of  suppressing-  the  slave  trade  was  un 
founded,  and  that  it  was  even  carried  m in  the  Colony. 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


S53 


CHAPTER  XXX. 

ABOLITION  OF  SLAVERY  IN  THE  BRITISH  COLONIES'. 

’remature  triumphs  over  the  supposed  abolition  of  the  Slave  Trade — Effects  of  this 
illusion  from  1807  till  1823 — Revival  of  anti-slavery  effort  in  England — Organiza- 
tion of  a Society  on  the  basis  of  gradualism — Writings  of  Elizabeth  Heyrick  in 
favor  of  immediatism — Pamphlet  of  Clarkson  on  the  illegality  of  Slavery — Change 
of  views  and  measures — Increased  efficiency — Petitions  to  Parliament — Commence- 
ment of  Anti-Slavery  Reporter,  1825 — Parliamentary  discussions,  1828-9-30 — 
Anti-Slavery  meetings — Eminent  Advocates— Methodist  Conferences,  Rectors  and 
Curates,  and  Doctors  of  Divinity,  enlisted — Dr.  Andrew  Thomson  of  Edinburgh, 
Bishop  of  Bath  and  Wells — Daniel  O'Connell,  George  Thompson  and  others — 
.Protest  of  Clarkson  and  Wilberforce  against  American  Colonization  Society- 
Other  political  reforms  advanced  abolition — Ministry  of  William  If. — Prominent 
statesmen — Influences  in  the  West  Indies — -Missionaries  among  the  Slaves— Op- 
posed by  the  planters — Increased  feeling  in  England— Numerous  petitions — Can- 
didates for  Parliament  questioned — Treatise  of  Judge  Jeremie — Persecutions  of 
the  Missionaries — Outrages  against  the  negroes,  1831 — Trial  of  Mr.  Knibb — His 
return  to  England — Increased  agitation — Memorials-  of  Missionary  Societies — Gov- 
ernment orders  the  demolished  chapels  to  be  rebuilt — Orders  insolently  disre- 
garded— Committees  of  Inquiry  in  Parliament — Pretended  preparations  for  free- 
dom— Witnesses  examined  before  Parliamentary  Committees: — Feeble  defenses  of 
the  Slave  party — Plans  of  emancipation— Passage  of  the  Act  of  Abolition — 
Apprenticeship — Final  Results — Testimonials — Slavery  abolished  in  the  British 
East  Indies — Lessons  of  instruction. 

The  slave  trade  and  the  slavery  of  this  country,  during  its 
ilonial  state,  ivere  substantially  the  same  with  the  slave  trade 
id  the  slavery  of  the  other  British  American  Colonies,  in- 
mding  the  British  West  India  Islands.  A common  origin,  a 
• mmon  character,  and  a common  relation  to-  British  law  and 
i the  British  Government,  pertained  to  them.  They  grew  up 
igether,  claiming  the  shelter  of  the  same  royal  grants,  the- 
me  acts  of  Parliament  for  regulating  the  trade  to  Africa- 
Gey  claimed  the  benefit  of  the  same  judicial  precedents  and 
1 ;al  opinions.  The  friends  of  liberty  in  England,  for  a cen- 

213 


354 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


tury  past,  have  sympathized  and  corresponded  with  those 
in  this  country,  on  the  subject.  It  seems  proper  to  pre-- 
sent  a brief  account  of  the  recent  anti-slavery  struggle  in 
Great  Britain  and  Ireland,  the  abolition  of  slavery  in  the 
British  West  Indies,  and  the  results  of  that  measure. 

The  error  of  supposing  that  the  slave  trade  could  be,  ir 
reality,  abolished,  while  slavery  itself  was  permitted  to  exist 
has  been  already  noticed,*  as  also  the  kindred  error  of  sup 
posing  that  the  abolition  of  the  slave  trade,  even  if  it  coulc 
be  accomplished,  would  virtually  abolish  slavery.!  Thesi 
delusions  prevailed  among  the  friends  of  liberty,  on  botl. 
sides  of  the  Atlantic,  with  few  and  solitary  exceptions.  Th 
legal  abolition  of  the  African  slave  trade  by  Great  Britaii 
and  America,  in  1807-8,  was  hailed  as  the  grand  jubilee  o: 
the  colored  race.  The  warfare  was  supposed  to  have  beei 
accomplished,  and  that  nothing  more  remained  but  to  cele 
brate  the  achievement,  and  immortalize  the  names  of  th 
victors.  Celebrations  were  held,  orations  were  delivered,  pic 
tures  were  painted  and  engraved,  and  poems  were  writtej 
and  dedicated  to  noble  Dukes.j;  Nothing,  in  fact,  in  the  waj 
of  gratulation,  triumph,  and  glorification,  was  left  undone 
Demonstrations,  to  a certain  extent,  in  this  direction,  migh 
have  been  very  well,  had  they  been  so  shaped  as  to  furnis 
incentives  to  farther  and  similar  efforts,  not  forgetting  the 
the  slaves  were  still  left  in  their  chains,  that  not  one  of  ther 
had  been  released  by  the  prohibition  of  the  slave  trade , an 
that,  in  Great  Britain  at  least,  the  measure  had  been  carrier 
in  certain  circles,  by  arguments  conceding  the  undisturbed 
continuance  of  slavery  itself.  As  it  was,  the  gratulation  wc 
disproportionate  and  premature,  tending  to  relax  effort,  to  r 
press  inquiry,  and  discountenance  further  aggressive  measure 
On  both  sides  of  the  Atlantic  has  this  influence  been  felt 
and  in  America  it  is  felt  still.  We  content  ourselves  to  ga 
nish  the  sepulchres  of  the  early  British  and  American  abolj 
tionists,  while  refusing  to  give  effect  to  their  labors. 


Chapter  VII. 


I Chapter  X. 


X Copity's  History  of  Slavery , 811. 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


355 


It  required  the  whole  time  from  1807  to  1823,  for  British 
abolitionists  to  recollect  that  the  slaves  in  the  colonies  were 
still  in  bondage,  and  to  discover  that  the  African  slave  trade* 
was  undiminished  in  extent  and  horrors.  Even  then  the 
measures  adopted  were  inadequate  to  the  exigency. 

In  1823  was  formed  the  “ Society  for  the  mitigation  and 
gradual  abolition  of  slavery  throughout  the  British  dominions,” 
if  which  the  “Patron  and  President  was  the  Duke  of  Glou- 
cester.” Among  the  Yice  Presidents,  twenty  in  number,  were 
.he  Marquis  of  Lansdowne,  the  Earl  of  Bristol,  Earl  Nugent, 
Lord  Suffield,  Lord  Calvert,  Henry  Brougham,  M.  P.,  Thos. 
Fowell  Buxton,  M.  P.,  Thomas  Clarkson,  Stephen  Bushing- 
on,  LL.D.,  M.  P.,  and  William  Wilberforce,  M.  P.,  &c.  Among 
he  Committee  were  James  Cropper,  Esq.,  of  Liverpool,  Sam- 
lel  Gurney,  Esq.,  Zachary  Macauley,  Esq.,  T.  B.  Macauley, 
3sq.,  Thomas  Sturge,  Esq.,  Wm.  Wilberforce,  Jun.,  Esq.,  and 
dev.  H.  Venn. 

The  ground  of  immediate  and  unconditional  emancipation 
vas  not  yet  taken  by  the  great  body  of  British  abolitionists, 
is  -the  name  of  this  society  gives  evidence  : 

“ About  this  time  considerable  attention  was  excited  by  a small  tract, 
videly  circulated,  entitled  ‘ Immediate,  not  gradual,  Abolition,  or  an  Inquiry 
nto  the  shortest,  safest,  and  most  effectual  means  of  getting  rid  of  West 
ndian  Slavery.’  This  tract,  though  published  anonymously,  was  generally 
nderstood  to  be  the  production  of  a talented  and  benevolent  Lady,  Miss 
lope,  of  Liverpool.”! — Copley's  History,  p.  329. 

The  more  common  and  prevalent  account,  however,  is,  that 
Elizabeth  Heyrick  was  the  first  public  advocate,  in  England, 
>f  the  doctrine  of  immediate  and  unconditional  abolition,  as 


* It  should  be  mentioned,  perhaps,  that  Messrs.  Stephen  and  Wilberforce,  in 
816,  introduced  and  supported  in  Parliament  the  Registry  Bill,  designed  to  “ pre- 
ent  the  illicit  introduction  of  slaves  from  Africa,”  which  was  carried  against  a 
crong  opposition  from  the  Colonists  and  their  partisans.  But  the  history  of  the 
rave  trade,  since  that  time,  as  already  shown  (Chap.  VII.),  demonstrates  the  utter 
leffieieney  of  all  measures  for  its  suppression,  during  the  continuance  of  slavery, 
t On  inquiry,  since  writing  the  above,  we  have  been  told,  on  authority  of  .John 
coble,  of  London,  that  the  pamphlet  here  attributed  to  Miss  Hope  was  written  by 
.lizabeth  Heyrick  (or  rather  Herrick,  which  is  now  said  to  he  the  correct  spelling.) 


356 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


before  taught  by  Hopkins  and  Edwards  in  America,  and  that 
she  was  the  author  of  a pamphlet  in  vindication  of  that  doc- 
trine.— Vide  British  Reforms  and  Reformers , by  H.  B.  Stanton. 

Another  advance  position,  of  almost  equal  importance,  was, 
about  this  time,  taken,  in  a pamphlet  by  the  venerable  Thomas 
Clarkson.  The  reader  will  recall  the  fact,  already  noticed, 
that  little  progress  was  made  in  Parliament  towards  the  legis- 
lative prohibition  of' the  slave  trade,  until  William  Pitt  demon- 
strated, on  a certain  occasion  in  the  House  of  Commons,  thal 
the  slave  trade  (all  its  high  pretensions  of  legality  notwith- 
standing) had  been,  from  the  beginning,  illegal.  A similai 
position  was  now  taken  by  Mr.  Clarkson,  concerning  slaven 
itself  in  the  British  Colonies.  In  doing  this,  however,  he  onlj 
revived  and  re-affirmed  the  old  doctrine  of  Granville  Sharp.41 

In  this  pamphlet  Mr.  Clarkson  showed,  to  the  satisfactior 
of  the  British  people,  that  there  never  had  been  any  lega 
slavery  in  any  of  the  British  Colonies.  All  had  been  usurpa 
tion  and  assumption  from  the  beginning. 

He  affirmed  “that  the  planters  can  neither  prove  a.mora 
nor  a legal  right  to  their  slaves.”  Having  examined  the  mora 
right  of  the  claim,  he  proceeded  to  argue  the  illegality  of 
slavery : 

“ He  brought  the  slaveholder’s  claim  to  the  test  of  original  grants,  or  per- 
missions of  Government,  act  of  Parliament,  charters,  or  English  laws.’ 
He  showed  “ that  neither  the  African  slave  trade,  nor  West  Indian  slaver) 
would  have  been  allowed  at  first,  but  for  the  misrepresentations  and  false 
hoods  of  those  engaged  in  them  ” — ■“  that  the  original  Government  grant.1 
and  permissions  had  their  origin  in  fraud  and  falsehood  ; and  if  the  premise! 
fall,  all  conclusions  and  concessions  grounded  on  them  must  fall,  too.”— 

“ Then,  as  to  charters — slavery  had  indeed  been  upheld  and  kept  togethe: 
by  the  laws  which  the  charters  gave  those  Colonies  power  to  make  ; tha 
now  slavery,  nevertheless,  was  illegal,  for  in  all  the  charters  it  wa: 
expressed  that  the  laws  and  statutes  made  under  them  must  not  be  repug 
nant,  but  conformable  to.  the  laws  of  Great  Britain.  But  these  did  no 
allow  of  slavery.” — “Indeed,  the  slaveholders  themselves  admitted  that  if 
debarred  whatever  was  repugnant  to  the  laws  of  England,  they  did  no 
see  how  they  could  have  any  title  to  their  slaves,  likely  to  be  supported  b) 


t See  Chap.  VI. 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


357 


he  laws  of  England.  In  fact,  the  Colonial  system  was  at  constant  vari- 
nce  with  the  whole  spirit  and  letter  of  the  English  Constitution.” — Cop- 
ey's  Hist.,  pp.  317-18. 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  dissemination  and  reception 
)f  these  views  exerted  a most  powerful  influence  in  producing 
t Parliamentary  prohibition  of  slavery  in  the  Colonies  of 
jreat  Britain.  It  is  difficult  to  conceive  how  these  views 
iould  be  controverted  without  virtually  demanding  a reversal 
)f  the  decision  of  Lord  Mansfield  in  the  Somerset  case,  in 
.772 ; and  equally  difficult  to  see  why,  if  that  decision  was 
:orrect,  the  reasoning  and  the  inferences  of  Mr.  Clarkson  do 
tot  apply  to  the  Continental  as  wrell  as  to  the  Island  Colonies 
>f  Great  Britain,  continuing,  as  they  did,  until  July  4,  1776, 
mder  the  mgis  of  Great  Britain.  This  being  established,  it 
Vould  be  natural  to  inquire  whether  or  how  the  memorable 
Declaration  of  the  States,  at  that  date,  could  have  legalized 
he  previously  illegal  slavery  of  this  country. 

But  to  return.  The  meliorating  and  gradual  policy  terrni- 
lated,  as  might  have  been  foreseen.  The  British  Govern- 
nent,  in  response  to  anti-slavery  petitions,  entered  readily 
nto  measures  for  mitigating  the  condition  of  slavery,  as  cheap 
is  they  were  useless,  proposing  to  provide  means  of  religious 
nstruetion  for  the  slaves,  to  extend  their  privileges,  to  receive 
heir  testimony  in  courts,  to  protect  their  rights  of  marriage 
,nd  property,  to  remove  obstructions  to  manumissions,  to  pre- 
sent the  separation  of  families,  to  restrain  the  power  of  arbi- 
rary  punishment,  especially  the  flogging  of  females,  and  to 
stablish  a Savings’  Bank  for  the  use  of  slaves.  All  these 
eforms  were  committed  to  the  care  of  the  Colonial  Legisla- 
ures,  showing  that  the  British  Government  and  people  had 
nueh  to  learn  concerning  slavery  and  slaveholding  legislators. 
Phis  was  in  1823. 

These  moderate  concessions  were  rejected  and  trampled 
ipon  by  the  local  authorities  as  subversive  of  all  the  control 
f the  master  over  the  slave,  ruinous  to  the  Colonies,  and 
msafe  for  the  inhabitants. 

In  1825,  the  Anti-Slavery  Society  commenced  publishing 


358 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


and  circulating  “ The  Monthly  Anti-Slavery  Reporter ,”  by 
Zachary  Macauley,  Esq.,  the  father  of  Thomas  B.  Macauley,' 
the  Essayist  and  Historian.  The  second  Annual  Report 
lamented  that  so  little  had  been  accomplished  for  the  benefit 
of  the  slaves.  Yery  little  indeed  had  been  attempted  in  the 
Colonies,  and  even  this  had  proved  a failure.  The  slaves 
understood  that  the  home  Government  had  provided  some- 
thing for  them,  which  had  been  withheld.  This  made  then; 
the  more  discontented,  and  these  discontents  were  magnified 
by  the  enemies  of  progress,  and  turned  into  arguments  agains* 
it.  Petitions  were  now  circulated  for  the  abolition  of  slavery  i 
in  the  Colonies. 

During  two  sessions  of  Parliament,  little  was  done  except 
in  respect  to  particular  abuses,  as  the  persecution  and  expul 
sion  of  certain  missionaries  and  free  persons  of  color,  &c.; 
also  in  respect  to  the  Mauritius  slave  trade,  the  conduct  of  the 
Colonial  Assemblies  in  rejecting  or  delaying  the  proposed 
reforms,  &c.  Much  important  information  came  to  light  ii 
the  discussions.  In  1828,  the  discussion  of  this  latter  topic 
was  resumed.  The  Secretary  of  State,  Mr.  Huskisson,  repre 
seated  that  some  improvements  had  been  made.  Mr.  Can 
ning,  then  deceased,  was  quoted  as  having  said,  “ Trust  not' 
the  masters  of  slaves  in  what  concerns  legislation  for  slavery.’  j 
A great  public  anti-slavery  meeting  was  held,  the  Duke  of 
Gloucester  presiding,  and  Mr.  Brougham,  Mr.  Wilberforce 
Mr.  Buxton,  Rev.  G.  Noel,  and  other  distinguished  men,  tool 
a part  in  the  proceedings.  From  this  time  petitions  againsl 
slavery  began  to  load  both  Houses  of  Parliament. 

In  May,  1829,  Mr.  Brougham  introduced  in  Parliament  the 
subject  of  slave  evidence,  and  a reform  of  Colonial  judicature 
Sir  George  Murray,  agreed  to  the  propriety  of  this  measure 
Anti-slavery  petitions  were  now  multiplied.  Discussions  be 
came  general,  and  earnest  debates  among  the  people  were 
frequent.  Important  meetings  were  held  in  different  portions 
of  Great  Britain  and  Ireland.  The  Catholic  emancipatior 
bill  brought  in  a new  accession  of  strength  from  Ireland  tc 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM;  359 

the  cause  of  the  enslaved.  The  friends  of  liberty  were 
encouraged  also  by  the  abolition  of  slavery  in  Mexico. 

In  May,  1830,  a general  meeting  of  the  Anti-Slavery  Soci- 
ety was  held,  Mr.  Wilberforce  presiding;  called  to  the  Chair 
by  Mr.  Clarkson.  The  result  was  an  earnest  petition  to  Par- 
liament no  longer  to  postpone  the  subject,  but  to  fix  a day, 
after  which  all  children  born  should  be  free. 

This  petition  was  presented  to  the  House  of  Commons  by 
Mr.  Brougham,  in  July.  A motion  made  by  him,  pledging 
the  House  “ to  take  steps  for  the  immediate  mitigation  and 
final  abolition  of  slavery,”  was  lost,  fifty -six  against  twenty- 
seven. 

“ Meantime,  public  meetings  were  held,  and  anti-slavery 
petitions  prepared  throughout  the  kingdom.  One  petition 
from  Edinburgh  received  twenty-two  thousand  signatures,  and 
from  other  places  in  like  proportion.” 

Men  of  learning,  talent,  piety,  and  influence,  espoused  the 
cause  in  public  meetings,  and  missionaries  who  had  beeu 
driven  home  from  their  field  of  labor  in  the  West  Indies, 
appeared  in  these  meetings  to  bear  their  testimony  against  the 
slave  system.  The  question  became  a political  one,  and  elec- 
tions to  Parliament  turned  on  the  position  of  the  candidates. 
The  Methodist  Conferences  and  ministers , in  a body,  exhorted  their 
brethren , for  the  love  of  Christ , to  vote  for  no  candidates  not  known 
as  pledged  to  the  cause  of  abolition.  Rectors  and  curates  of  the 
Established  Church,  as  well  as  ministers  of  the  dissenting- 
sects,  took  an  active  part  in  anti-slavery  meetings,  and  even 
lectured  from  place  to  place.  Doctors  of  Divinity,  instead  of 
searching  their  Bibles  in  quest  of  apologies  for  slaveholding, 
made  use  of  them  for  the  purpose  of  urging  upon  the  people 
and  their  rulers  the  duty  of  “ breaking  every  yoke,  and  let- 
ting the  oppressed  go  free.”  Among  these,  Rev.  Andrew 
Thomson,  D.D.,  of  Edinburgh,  signalized  himself  as  a most 
efficient  public  advocate  of  immediate  emancipation.  The 
influence  and  the  efforts  of  such  men  as  Rev.  John  Angell 
James,  of  Birmingham,  and  the  Rev.  J.  Gf.  Pike  (the  author 
of  “Persuasives  to  Early  Piety”),  were  enlisted  on  the  same 


360 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


side.  In  one  word,  the  learning  and  the  piety  of  Great 
Britain  were  earnestly,  honestly,  and  without  reserve  or 
equivocation,  thrown  into  the  anti-slavery  enterprise. 

At  an  anti-slavery  meeting  in  Bath,  the  Bishop  of  Bath  and 
Wells  presided,  and  Mr.  Wilberforce,  after  forty  years  labor 
to  secure  gradual  and  prospective  measures,  came  forward  to 
advocate  immediate  action.  At  this  meeting  an  attempt  was 
made  to  create  a disturbance  by  clamor  and  hisses.  Order 
being  restored,  a debate  was  held  on  the  claims  of  the  slave- 
holders to  compensation. 

The  excitement  in  the  country  ran  high.  “ At  Bristol,  a • 
most  disgraceful  uproar  was  made  by  the  upholders  of  slavery, 
who  interrupted  a meeting,  regularly  commenced.”  At  a sub- 
sequent meeting,  there  was  an  earnest  debate. 

It  was  during  the  agitation  and  debates  of  this  period  that 
George  Thompson,  who  afterwards  lectured  for  a time  in  this  I 
country,  became  distinguished  as  an  eloquent  advocate  of  the  I 
cause,  and  acquired  a reputation  which  afterwards  gave  him 
a seat  in  Parliament.  Charles  Stuart,  also  well  known  to  the 
friends  of  liberty  in  this  country,  rendered  efficient  services 
at  that  period,  both  by  his  pen  and  his  voice.  Joseph  Sturge, 
of  Birmingham,  a wealthy  and  talented  gentleman,  of  the 
Society  of  Friends,  was  among  the  efficient  laborers  in  the 
cause,  as  was  also  John  Scoble,  of  London,  the  laborious  and 
vigilant  Secretary  of  the  British  and  Foreign  Anti-Slavery 
Society. 

The  doctrines  and  measures  of  gradualism  and  melioration 
were  now  abandoned  by  abolitionists,  for  those  of  immediate 
and  unqualified  emancipation  on  the  soil,  and  the  claim  of  any 
compensation  to  the  master  was  abjured.  In  these  views,  as 
well  as  in  opposition  to  the  characteristic  principles  and  aims 
of  the  Colonization  Society,  (whose  agents  had  solicited  patron- 
age in  England,)  the  venerable  Clarkson  and  Wilberforce 
heartily  concurred.  On  this  latter  topic,  Mr.  Clarkson  repeat 
edly  employed  his  pen.  And  one  of  the  last  acts  of  Mr.  Wil 
berforce  was  the  signature  of  a protest  against  the  American 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM.  361 

scheme  of  expatriation,  a short  time  before  his  death,  which 
occurred  in  July,  1833. 

This  salutary  change  in  the  policy,  the  measures,  and  the 
cachings  of  British  abolitionists  produced  corresponding  fruits. 
A.s  soon  as  the  public  conscience  was  distinctly  and  pungently 
iddressed,  it  began  to  be  reached  and  operated  upon  to  good 
Durpose. 

Other  causes  concurred  to  favor  the  revolution  in  progress. 
The  Catholic  Emancipation  bill  of  1829,  brought  with  it  an 
iccession  of  strength  to  the  cause  of  slave  emancipation,  and 
he  celebrated  champion  of  Irish  enfranchisement,  Daniel 
3’Connell,  was  always  ready  to  advocate  the  claims  of  the 
legroes. 

The  repeal  of  the  odious  Corporation  and  Test  Acts,  in 
1828,  placing  dissenters  on  an  equal  ground  of  eligibility  to 
>ffice,  and  the  similar  concession  to  Catholic  subjects,  a few 
nonths  after,  encouraged  freedom  of  discussion  on  general 
subjects,  and  brought  into  the  field  of  political  action  large 
lumbers  who  had  learned  to  sympathize  with  the  oppressed. 
The  celebrated  Reform  bill  of  1832  belongs  to  the  same  cate- 
gory, and  may  be  mentioned  here,  though  in  advance  of  its 
shronological  order.  By  this  measure  the  unjust  and  dispro- 
lortionate  suffrage  of  the  ancient  boroughs,  beyond  their 
iresent  proportion  of  inhabitants,  in  electing  members  to  Par- 
iament,  was  done  away,  and  the  masses  of  the  industrious 
>eople  were,  in  some  measure,  restored  to  their  political 
ights.  It  is  pleasing  to  notice  how  all  these  democratic  refor- 
nations  favored  the  introduction  of  redress  for  the  enslaved. 
Ynd  the  reader  will  have  observed  the  general  fact,  both  in 
he  British  and  American  legislatures,  that  measures  in  behalf 
)f  justice  and  freedom  are  commonly  carried  in  the  popular 
iranch  first.  The  department  nearest  to  the  mass  of  the  peo- 
)le  and  most  directly  responsible  to  them,  is  soonest  reached 
>y  the  voice  of  humanity  and  conscience.* 


* An  argument  designed  to  prove  the  worthlessness  of  democratic  institutions 
as  been  drawn  from  the  alleged  fact  that  the  enjoyment  of  universal  suffrage  in 


362 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


Acid  to  this  the  new  ministry,  formed  soon  after  the  acces 
sion  .of  William  IV.,  in  1830,  were  favorable,  beyond  al 
former  precedent,  to  the  cause  of  abolition  and  general  free 
dom.  Grey,  Lansdowne,  Holland,  Brougham,  Durham,  A1 
thorpe,  Howick,  Melbourne,  Palmerston,  Goderich,  Russell 
Auckland,  Stanley,  Graham,  Denman. 

To  these  influences  in  England,  we  may  add  others  in  tin 
West  Indies.  Christian  missionaries  were  at  work  there  | 
Religion,  and  a knowledge  of  letters  had  begun  to  reach  anc 
open  the  minds  of  the  enslaved,  for  West  Indian  slavery  hac 
not  as  effectually  bolted  the  doors  of  its  prison-house  agains. 
the  light  of  heaven,  as  has  the  slavery  of  our  North  Americai 
States.  British  Protestantism  had  not  learned  nor  taught  tha 
“ oral  instruction”  was  sufficient  for  slaves.  Bibles,  to  some 
extent,  had  been  furnished  them,  and  they  had  been  allowec 
to  build  chapels  for  worship. 

But  the  determined  advocates  of  slavery  were  beginning  tc 
discover  their  mistake.  They  saw  that  intelligence  and  puritj 
were  incompatible  with  the  condition  of  slavery.  The  mis 
sionaries,  too,  with  all  their  abundant  prudence,  (forbearinc 
to  instruct  the  slaves  in  their  heaven-conferred  rights,)  hac 
not  learned  to  teach  a religion  that  justified  oppression,  or  that 
could  be  embraced  without  aspirations  after  freedom.  The 
missionaries  began  to  foresee  a little  of  the  struggle  that  was  be- 
fore them,  if  the  West  Indies  were  ever  to  be  christianized. 
They  patiently  labored  on,  waiting  the  event,  while  the  plant- 
ers regarded  them  with  suspicion,  and  watched  for  opportuni- 
ties aneb  pretexts  for  ejecting  them.  The  overruling  provi- 
dence of  God  was  visibly  at  work  preparing  the  way  for  the 
change  that  was  to  take  place. 

It  was  under  this  state  of  things  that  the  anti-slavery  agita- 
tion progressed  in  Great  Britain.  “ Early  in  1831,  the  num- 


America  has  never  secured  the  abolition  of  slavery.  The  sophism  lies  in  the  noto- 
rious fact  that  the  premises  are  untrue.  Universal  suffrage  is  not  enjoyed  inj 
America ; all  the  slaves,  and  most  of  the  free  people  of  color,  being  excluded 
from  the  polls.  To  establish  the  universal  suffrage  iu  America,  would  be  to  abolish 
American  slavery. 


SLAVERY  AXD  FREEDOM. 


363 


ber  of  petitions  presented  in  one  session  amounted  to  upward 
of  five  thousand.”  On  motion  of  Mr.  Buxton,  April  15,  the 
House  of  Commons  resolved  to  consider,  speedily,  the  best 
means  of  effecting  the  abolition  of  slavery  throughout  the 
British  dominions,  but  a few  days  after  the  Parliament  was 
adjourned. 

A public  meeting  of  the  Anti-Slavery  Society  was  held, 
Lord  Suffield  presiding.  “The  speakers  were  Mr.  Buxton, 
Sir  James  Mackintosh,  Dr.  Lushington,  Rev.  D.  Wilson,  (since 
Bishop  of  Calcutta,)  Mr.  O’Connell,  Mr.  Shell,  Mr.  Pownall, 
Rev.  J.  Burnett,  Rev.  Mr.  Watson,  Mr.  Evans,  Mr.  Stephen, 
Rev.  J.  Cunningham.  They  insisted  upon  the  utter  extinc- 
tion of  slavery  by  act  of  Parliament,  and , to  this  end , the  im- 
portance of  “ a judicious  use , on  the  part  of  the  people,  of  their  right 
of  choosing  their  'representatives."  “ The  formation  of  a new  Par- 
liament ivas,  in  no  small  degree,  influenced  by  these  considera- 
tions?.”* 

At  the  “ hustings,”  where,  after  the  English  custom,  the 
candidates  presented  themselves  to  be  questioned,  while  the 
people  were  voting,  they  were  constantly  and  publicly  inter- 
rogated by  the  individual  voters,  as  they  came  up,  one  after 
- another,  “ Will  you  vote  for  the  abolition  of  slavery  ?"  and  as  the 
answer  was  yea  or  nay,  (or  dubious,)  the  vote  was  given  or 
withheld.  On  these  election  days  was  fought  the  decisive 
battles  of  West  Indian  freedom.  Under  these  influences  was 
elected  the  first  Reform  Parliament  which  assembled  at  the 
close  of  the  year  1832,  f to  signalize  itself  by  one  of  the  most 
glorious  achievements  of  modern  legislation. 

At  the  close  of  1831  there  appeared  an  important  work  on 
Colonial  Slavery,  by  Judge  Jeremie,  late  of  St.  Lucia.  Its 
disclosures  made  a powerful  impression  upon  the  mind  of  the 
British  nation.  No  longer  were  apologies  needed  for  the 
“ extravagant  statements  of  over  excited  abolitionists.”  The 
workings  of  the  slave  system,  the  condition  of  the  enslaved, 
and  the  demoralization  of  the  masters,  were  shown  to  be  alto- 


Copley's  Hist.,  p.  358. 


t lb.,  p.  4A4. 


364 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


gether  and  immeasurably  worse  than  any  of  the  abolitionists, 
had  ever  supposed,  or  could  have  imagined.  Documentary' 
facts  demonstrated  that  “ truth  is  stranger  than  fiction,”  and 
“ the  poetry  of  philanthropy  ” became  stale  by  the  side  of  the 
records  of  jurisprudence.  Judge  Jeremie  had  been  strongly 
prepossessed  in  favor  of  the  slaveholders,  had  gone  out  there 
with  the  determination  to  administer,  impartially,  the  laws 
of  the  country,  had  found  the  task  utterly  impracticable,  and 
had  returned.  There  could  be  no  such  thing  as  the  reign  of 
impartial  law,  in  a community  of  slaveholders.  One  specifi- 
cation, illustrated  by  a variety  of  incidents,  was  this;  that,  in 
no  case  before  a court  of  justice,  where  the  claims  of  slavery, 
or  the  interests  of  master  and  slave  were  involved,  was  the 
least  reliance  to  be  placed  upon  the  testimony,  under  oath,  of 
any  slaveholder,  however  exalted  his  station,  or  however  sanc- 
timonious his  professions. 

About  the  same  time  that  these  disclosures  were  made  in 
England,  the  West  India  Islands  were  becoming  the  theatre  I 
of  new  outrages,  the  knowledge  of  which,  in  England,  soon 
after,  could  not  fail  to  swell  the  tide  of  public  indignation  , 
against  slavery. 

“ It  had  long  been  a trick  of  West  Indian  policy,  when  any  measure 
favorable  to  negro  emancipation,  or  at  all  bearing  upon  it,  was  in  progress, 
to  excite  among  the  slaves  some  trifling  brawl  with  their  managers,  which 
was  then  dignified  with  the  formidable  name  of  an  insurrection,  the  military 
forces  were  called  out  to  suppress  it,  at  a wanton  expense  of  negro  blood, 
and  then  intelligence  was  sent  home,  by  way  of  proving  the  unfitness  of  the 
negroes  for  emancipation.” — Copley^s  Hist.,  371. 

“ In  1815,  when  Mr.  Wilberforce  gave  notice  of  a bill  for  the  registration 
of  all  Colonial  slaves,  a universal  clamor  was  excited  in  the  West  Indies 
and  sham  insurrections  were  enacted  for  producing  an  effect  in  England.  * 
In  1823,  the  movements  in  England  occasioned  similar  demonstrations. 

“ Rumors  of  plots  and  insurrections  were  constantly  assailing  the  public 
ear.” — lb.,  p.  371-4. 

The  close  of  the  year  1831,  and  the  beginning  of  1832, 
were  signalized  by  a more  general  and  violent  outbreak  of 
slaveholding  fury,  which  proved  to  be  the  death  struggle  of 
West  India  slavery.  The  moderate  measures  of  melioration 


SLAVERY  AND-  FREEDOM. 


365 


proposed  by  the  British  Government,  produced  the  greatest 
excitement  among  the  planters  of  Jamaica.  They  held  public 
meetings,  threatening  to  resist  the  mother  country,  and  re- 
nounce allegiance  to  the  King.  This  was  directly  calculated 
to  rouse  the  slaves,  yet  they  remained  quiet,  and  measures 
were  next  resorted  to,  designed  evidently  to  produce  an  ap- 
pearance of  disturbance  among  them.  The  term  of  their 
usual  Christmas  holidays  was  unlawfully  abridged,  and  when 
they  were  ordered  to  their  work,  before  the  close  of  their  ac- 
customed recreations,  a portion  of  them  refused.  This  refusal 
was  magnified  into  an  insurrection,  and  proclamations  in  the 
name  of  the  King  were  solemnly  issued,  announcing  the  pre- 
tended fact,  and  spreading  consternation  and  alarm  in  every 
direction.  The  militia  were  ordered  out,  attacks  were  made 
upon  the  defenseless  negroes,  they  were  shot  down  in  great 
numbers,  and  their  cane-sheds  and  houses  destroyed.  “ It 
does  not  appear  that  the  negroes  attempted  the  life  of  any 
person,  but  their  determined  insubordination  was  very  evi- 
dent.” By  the  testimony  of  the  more  moderate  among  the 
planters  themselves,  as  well  as  of  the  missionaries,  afterwards, 
there  was  no  necessity,  for  any  purposes  of  self-defense,  for 
this  wanton  attack  upon  the  negroes. 

But  the  malice  of  the  slaveholders  did  not  exhaust  itself 
thus.  The  missionaries,  Baptists,  Wesley ans,  and  Moravians, 
shared  a large  portion  of  their  fury.  In  their  religious  in- 
structions, they  had  abstained,  even  to  a fault,  from  teaching 
the  slaves  the  wickedness  of  slaveholding  and  the  extent  and 
sacredness  of  their  own  rights.  It  does  not  appear  that  they 
had  directly  admonished  the  slaveholders  of  their  great  sin. 
But  they  had  undoubtedly  done  something  for  the  moral  and 
intellectual  improvement  of  the  slaves, — they  had  treated 
their  converts  as  brethren  in  Christ — and  this  was  an  unpar- 
donable sin  against  the  slave  system  ! From  the  beginning  of 
the  disturbances  already  mentioned,  they  had  done  all  in  their 
power  to  keep  the  slaves  quiet,  and  to  dissuade  them  from 
acts  of  insubordination  and  aggression.  They  had  taken 
pains  to  disabuse  some  of  them  of  the  mistaken  impression 


366 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


that  the  King  had  made  them  free.  They  had  even  entreated 
them  to  resume  their  labors.  But  all  this  did  not  suffice  to- 
conciliate  or  pacify  the  slaveholders.  The  missionaries  were 
arrested,  insulted,  threatened  with  hanging,  imprisoned,  tried 
for  their  lives,  and  no  arts  of  bribery  or  intimidation  left  un- 
tried to  extort  testimony  against  them  that  should  seem  to 
warrant  their  conviction  and  execution.  The  newspaper 
presses,  in  the  meantime,  teemed  with  the  most  inflammatory 
and  shameless  falsehoods  against  them,  declaring  that  “it 
would  be  a grateful  exhibition  to  the  island  to  see  a dozen  of 
them  gibbeted.”  One  editor  called  on  the  public  to  “raze, 
their  chapels  to  the  ground,  and  then  take  away  their  lives.” 
When  no  charges  could  be  substantiated  against  them,  they 
were  nevertheless  incarcerated  in  filthy  prisons,  and  by  this 
means,  perhaps,  chiefly,  they  escaped,  for  a season,  the  rage 
of  the  mob.  When,  at  length,  they  were  bailed  out,  the 
magistrates  who  had  extended  to  them  this  favor,  were  de- 
nounced and  villified  in  their  turn.  Even  the  more  moderate 
and  enlightened  portion  of  the  inhabitants  were  led  to  con- 
clude that  the  missionaries  must  have  been  very  imprudent. 
Their  friends  strongly  urged  them  to  leave  the  island,  assur- 
ing them  that  their  usefulness  was  at  end.  On  every  side 
they  encountered  countenances  distorted  by  expressions  of 
malice  and  revenge. 

At  this  critical  juncture,  the  arrival  of  some  new  missiona- 
ries, along  with  Mr.  Burchell,  a.  missionary  who  had  been  to 
England  for  his  health,  was  made  the  occasion  for  a new  out- 
break. Mr.  Burchell  was  immediately  arrested,  and  absurdly 
charged  with  having  participated  in  the  rebellion.  He  was 
liberated  on  bail.  Mr.  Knibb  and  his  companions  were  again 
summoned  to  answer  to  charges  of  having  preached  in  an  un- 
licensed house  to  a large  congregation  of  negroes  and  others. 
After  examination  they  were  discharged.  But  the  fury  of 
the  slaveholders  could  no  longer  be  restrained.  They  assem- 
bled in  mobs,  demolished  the  chapels  of  the  missionaries,  and 
threatened  their  lives.  “ Both  magistrates  and  militia  were 
actively  engaged  in  this  work.”  Finding  it  unsafe  to  remain 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


367 


;>n  shore,  the  missionaries  sought  shelter  on  board  some 
British  vessels  in  the  harbor,  but  the  captains  were  afraid  to 
receive  them,  lest  the  inhabitants  should  refuse  to  load  their 
vessels.  At  length,  Captain  Trefusis  consented  to  receive 
them,  till  the  excitement  subsided. 

The  missionaries  memorialized  the  Governor,  protesting 
their  innocence,  and  asking  redress  for  the  loss  of  their  cha- 
pels. The  Governor  issued  a proclamation  denouncing  these 
acts  of  violence,  and  enjoining  on  the  magistrates  to  quell  all 
disorderly  meetings,  to  protect  property,  and  bring  the  of- 
fenders to  justice.  But  the  proclamation  was  torn  down  from 
the  walls.  The  very  persons  called  upon  to  bring  offenders 
to  j ustice,  were  themselves  the  offenders. 

“ The  most  base  and  malignant  efforts  were  still  made  to 
implicate  the  missionaries.”  Negroes  were  threatened,  and 
even  cruelly  tortured  to  make  them  testify  that  the  missiona- 
ries— especially  that  Mr.  Burchell — had  excited  them  to  rebel. 
But  they  steadily  affirmed  the  contrary,  and  the  persecutors 
were  defeated  in  this  part  of  their  scheme.  Public  meetings 
were,  however,  held  by  them,  at  which.  “ gentlemen ” regretted 
that  they  were  not  present  at  the  destruction  of  the  chapels ; 
others  made  speeches,  declaring  that  they  must  “ get  rid  of 
the  Baptists that  if  the  House  of  Assembly  would  not  ex- 
pel them,  other  measures  must  be  taken  ; that  “neither  ought 
the  Wesleyans  to  be  allowed  to  remain;”  that  Mr.  Murray  (a 
Wesleyan  missionary)  should  be  informed  that  “it  would  be 
at  the  risk  of  his  life  that  he  attempted  to  preach,”  &c.  Reso- 
lutions to  the  same  effect  were  adopted  at  meetings  in  differ- 
ent parts  of  the  island,  declaring  that  they  must  “get  rid  of  all 
sectaries,”  or  dissenting  ministers.  Clergymen,  however,  of 
the  Church  Establishment,  who  favored  the  religious  instruc- 
tion of  the  negroes,  found  little  less  favor  at  their  hands. 

Mr.  Knibb  was  released  the  14th  of  February,  after  a pe- 
riod of  imprisonment,  but  was  soon  after  informed  of  a de- 
sign against  his  life,  and  his  house  was  the  same  evening 
assaulted.  Similar  attacks  were  made  upon  others. 

“ On  the  evening  of  Mr.  Burchell’s  release,  a white  mob 


368 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


collected  around  his  lodgings,  vowing  they  would  tar  ant 
feather  him.”  By  the  exertions  of  the  colored  people,  am- 
the  presence  of  the  chief  justice,  they  were  deterred  fron 
their  purpose,  on  the  condition  that  Mr.  B.  should  leave  tin 
island,  to  which  he  consented,  and  a detachment  guarded  hin 
through  the  streets  to  embark.  Messrs.  Gardner  and  Knibl 
were  subjected  to  trial  the  following  week,  and  the  next  thing 
we  hear  is  “ that  this  very  same  William  Knibb,  who  liac 
been  treated  as  an  incendiary,  a promoter  of  rebellion,  Avas 
employed  to  examine  certain  negroes,  and  find  out,  if  possi- 
ble, the  causes  of  the  rebellion.”  The  result  proved  that  the. 
violent  meetings  of  the  slaveholders,  already  mentioned,  al 
Avhich  they  threatened  to  resist  the  British  Government  and 
throw  off  their  allegiance  to  the  King,  was  the  first  thing  that: 
made  the  slaves  suspect  that  the  British  Government  and  the 
King  had  ordered  their  liberation. 

Mr.  Knibb  Avas,  nevertheless,  urgently  requested  by  some 
of  the  magistrates  to  leave  the  island,  and  finding  it  impossi- 
ble to  be  longer  useful  in  that  field  of  labor,  he  consented,  in 
April,  1832,  to  do  so,  and  was  appointed  by  the  other  mis- 
sionaries to  represent  their  case  to  the  people  of  England. 
This  act  sealed  the  overthroAV  of  slavery  in  the  British  West 
Indies.  The  revelations  of  Mr.  Knibb,  on  his  return  home, 
convinced  the  British  nation  that  Slavery  and  Christianity 
could  not  co-exist  in  the  Islands,  and  the  doom  of  slavery 
became  certain.  Some  attempts  were,  in  the  meantime,  made 
by  the  missionaries  remaining  in  Jamaica  to  resume  their 
labors,  but  in  vain.  The  further  preaching  of  the  Gospel 
among  the  slaves  awaited  the  abolition  of  slavery. 

The  Missionary  Societies  in  England,  through  their  com- 
mittees, represented  to  the  Colonial  Secretary  of  State,  Lord 
Goderich,  the  outrages  that  had  been  committed  in  Jamaica. 
“ Instructions  were  accordingly  forwarded  to  Lord  Mulgrave, 
the  newly  appointed  Governor  of  Jamaica,  and  by  him 
recommended  to  the  House  of  Assembly,  to  provide  means 
for  rebuilding  the  thirteen  Baptist  and  four  Wesleyan  chapels, 
so  wantonly  and  illegally  destroyed.”  “These  recommenda- 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


369 


ions  were  disregarded,  or  rather,  insolently  rejected,”  thus 
■evealing  to  the  British  Government  the  temper  of  the  slave 
iarty.  But  it  was  found  necessary,  for  the  security  of  all 
louses  of  worship,  to  enact  a law  for  the  future,  that  if  any 
uch  building  should  be  injured  or  destroyed  by  a mob,  the 
lamage  should  be  repaired  by  the  county.  Committees  of 
nquiry  were  instituted  in  Parliament  respecting  these  out- 
ages, and  respecting  the  pretended  rebellion  on  the  part  of 
he  negroes,  and  the  whole  truth  of  the  case,  at  last, ‘came  to 
ight.  The  pretense  of  preparing  the  slaves  for  freedom, 
rhile  opposing  by  violence  their  instruction,  was  thoroughly 
xposed.  The  meetings  of  Missionary  Societies  became  anti- 
lavery  meetings.  The  Anti-Slavery  Society  took  the  ground 
f immediate  and  unconditional  emancipation,  and  from  ever}* 
art  of  the  United  Kingdom  there  came  up  one  united  de- 
land  for  the  utter  abolition  of  slavery. 

“ On  the  9th  of  June,  1832,  Lord  Goderich  addressed  a circular  to  the 
overnors  of  the  Colonies,  announcing'  to  them  the  formation  of  a Commit- 
e in  the  House  of  Commons,  in  consequence  of  the  numerous  petitions 
ir  the  abolition  of  slavery,  to  consider  and  report  what  measures  it  might 
; expedient  to  adopt  with  that  view.” — Copley's  Hist.,  430. 

A similar  committee  was  appointed  in  the  House  of  Lords. 
. large  number  of  witnesses  were  examined  before  both  of 
lese  committees,  and  voluminous  statistical  facts  were  intro- 
aced,  particularly  by  Mr.  Buxton,  touching  the  main  ques- 
ons  concerning  slavery,  and  the  workings  of  emancipation 
herever  it  had  been  tried.  The  slave  party  did  their  best 
■ sustain  themselves  during  these  investigations,  but  their 
forts  only  served  to  establish  the  positions  of  the  abolition* 
-S.  Their  “ reluctant  admissions  and  awkward  apologies  or 
rasions  of  adverse  witnesses,”  says  Copley,  “only  served  to 
'nfirm  and  establish  the  views  of  all  thinking  and  impartial 
irsons  on  the  other  side.” 

The  objections  that  emancipation  would  not  be  safe,  that 
e liberated  slaves  would  rise  against  their  masters,  that  the 
lands  would  be  reduced  to  a state  of  anarchy  and  overrun 
ith  idlers  and  vagabonds — objections  once  so  powerful  as 

24 


370 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


to  stagger  the  faith  of  philanthropists  themselves,  were  noy 
completely  overthrown,  and  all  the  terrors  they  had  createc' 
were  dispelled,  in  the  light  of  well  attested  historical  facts 
The  “ horrors  of  St.  Domingo”  were  shown  to  be  the  horror; 
of  slavery , and  not  of  freedom.  The  history  of  emancipatioi 
was  found  to  be  the  history  of  the  most  beneficial  results. 

The  ancient  Romans  had  tested  the  policy  of  emancipation 
to  obtain  soldiers  in  their  wars  against  Hannibal.  The  testi 
mony  of  Tiberius  Gracchus,  confirmed  by  Cicero,  and  approvec 
by  Montesquieu,  assures  us  of  the  salutary  effects.  Chris 
tianity  had  abolished  slavery  throughout  the  Roman  Empir 
without  disaster.  The  feudal  system  had  been  displaced  ii 
modern  Europe,  and  nobody  deplored  the  change.  Englisi 
slaves  liberated,  a few  centuries  ago  by  their  Irish  masters 
did  not  cut  the  throats  of  their  benefactors.  In  Chili,  ever 
child  born  after  the  10th  of  October,  1811,  was  declared  free 
in  Buenos  Ayres,  after  January,  1813.  In  Colombia,  all  slave 
bearing  arms  were  emancipated  July  19, 1821,  and  provision 
made  for  emancipating  the  remainder,  amounting  to  two  hur 
dred  and  eighty  thousand.  In  Mexico,  Sept.  15th,  1821 
instantaneous  and  unconditional  emancipation  was  extends 
to  every  slave.  In  Guadaloupe,  eighty-five  thousand  slave' 
were  set  free  in  1794,  when  there  was  a population  of  onl 
thirteen  thousand  whites.  At  the  Cape  of  Good  Hope,  tbirt 
thousand  Hottentots  were  emancipated  in  1823.  In  all  thes 
instances,  the  change  had  taken  place  without  producing  an 
unhappy  results. 

Facts,  of  which  these  are  a specimen,  when  spread  on 
before  the  British  Government  and  the  British  public,  prc 
pared  the  way  for  a still  more  signal  and  illustrious  exempli 
fication  of  the  safety  of  doing  right! 

Matters  in  Jamaica,  in  the  meantime,  were  ripening  for  th 
final  result.  Lord  Mulgrave,  the  new  Governor  sent  fror 
England,  in  his  speech  to  the  Colonial  Assembly,  had  recon 
mended  the  religious  instruction  of  the  slaves.  So  far  froi 
responding  to  the  sentiment,  the  Assembly  recorded  its  fhrea 
of  revolt  from  the  British  Government,  whereupon  the  Go1 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


371 


ernor  dissolved  the  Assembly.  A new  election,  under  the 
Reform  bill,  which  extended,  it  seems,  to  the  Colonies,  secured 
an  Assembly  of  more  moderate  and  liberal  views. 

The  first  reformed  British  Parliament  assembled  about  the 
close  of  the  year  1832.  Mr.  Buxton  soon  gave  notice  of  a 
motion  for  the  abolition  of  slavery,  unless  the  Government 
should  take  the  matter  into  its  own  hands.  LordAlthorpe 
stated,  in  reply,  that  it  was  the  intention  of  the  Government 
to  do  so,  and  that  he  • would  shortly  bring  a bill  before  the 
House,  which  he  trusted  would  be  both  safe  and  satisfactory. 
The  nation  now  waited  for  this  measure  in  almost  breathless 
suspense. 

The  23d  of  April,  1833,  was  the  day  appointed  for  bring- 
ing it  forward,  and  the  Anti-Slavery  Society  improved  the 
interim  by  holding  a public  meeting  in  Exeter  Hall,  at  which 
speeches  were  made  by  Lord  Suffield,  Mr.  Buxton,  Joseph 
John  Gurney,  Earl  Fitzwilliam,  Rev.  J.  W.  Cunningham,  G. 
Strickland,  M.P.,  Rev.  J.  Burnet,  H.  Pownall,  Esq.,  Mr.  Geo. 
Stephen,  Lord  Milton,  Dr.  Lushington,  and  others. 

“ A still  more  important  meeting  was  held  in  the  same  hall 
a few  days  afterwards,”  consisting  of  three  hundred  and  sixty- 
nine  delegates  from  various  parts  of  the  United  Kingdom. 
“ More  than  three  hundred  of  the  delegates  attended  at  the 
house  of  Earl  Grey,  to  present  a memorial,  which  was  read 
by  Mr.  Gurney.”  The  deputation  had  an  audience  with  Lord 
Althorpe,  and  with  Mr.  Stanley,  the  Colonial  Secretary  of 
State.  They  represented  the  necessity  of  immediate  and  total 
p mancipation , in  the  full  confidence  that  such  an  emancipation 
/.vould  be  peaceable.  These  views  were  embodied  in  a memo- 
:ial  to  Lord  Grey,  and  exerted,  no  doubt,  a strong  influence 
upon  the  Government. 

The  plan  first  proposed,  however,  was  unsatisfactory.  It 
contemplated  a compensation  of  £15,000,000  to  the  planters, 
which  was  to  be  paid  out  of  the  earnings  of  the  negroes.  It 
proposed  a twelve  years’  apprenticeship,  during  which  time 
he  compensation  money  was  to  be  earned. 

Abolitionists  justly  contended  that  compensation  was  due, 


372 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


if  at  all,  to  the  slave,  and  not  to  the  master.  They  contended 
that  emancipation  should  be  entire  and  immediate.  The  • 
planters,  on  the  other  hand,  petitioned  for  compensation. 
While  these  questions  were  pending,  the  friends  of  emancipa- 
tion held  another  meeting,  July  20,  and  protested  against  the 
objectionable  features  of  the  bill. 

The  details  of  the  act  of  emancipation  were  finally  adjusted 
on  this  basis,  viz  : 

1.  The  entire  extinction  of  slavery,  to  take  place  on  the  1st 
of  August,  1834. 

2.  Field  laborers,  above  six  years  old,  to  serve  as  appren-. 
tices  for  six  years,  ending  1st  of  August,  1840. 

3.  Domestic  or  house  servants  to  serve  as  apprentices  four 

years,  ending  first  of  August,  1838.  . 

4.  Children  under  six  years,  to  be  free,  without  apprentice- 
ship. Children  hereafter  born  to  be  free. 

5.  The  slaves  to  pay  no  part  of  their  redemption  money, 
but  a compensation  of  £20,000,000  out  of  the  public  treasury 
to  be  paid  to  the  planters,  at  the  dose  of  the  apprenticeship. 

Other  regulations  were  specified,  for  securing  the  rights  of 
the  apprentices  and  their  masters. 

The  bill  passed  the  House  of  Commons  August  7,  the  House 
of  Lords,  August  20,  and  received  the  royal  assent  August 
28th,  1833. 

It  remains  to  record  the  results  of  this  measure. 

The  first  of  August,  1834,  came  and  passed  peacefully,  with- 
out the  slightest  disturbance,  in  any  of  the  islands.  And 
there  has  been  none  since. 

In  Antigua  and  Bermuda,  the  Colonial  Legislatures  pre- 
ferred to  dispense  with  the  apprenticeship  system,  believing 
immediate  and  complete  emancipation  to  be  safest,  and  desir- 
ing likewise  the-  earlier  reception  of  the  compensation  money,  ' 
to  which  this  measure  would  entitle  them.  They  reaped  the 
double  reward  of  their  sagacity,  experiencing  none  of  the  per- 
plexity occasioned  by  the  apprenticeship  system  elsewhere. 

In  Jamaica,  Barbadoes,  and  the  other  islands,  the  appren- 
ticeship went  into  operation,  and  worked  as  well  as  could 


SLAVERY  ASTD  FREEDOM. 


373 


have  been  anticipated.  But  its  inconveniences  and  vexations 
led  to  its  voluntary  abandonment,  and  the  entire  freedom  of 
the  field  laborers,  on  the  first  of  August,  1838,  two  years  be- 
fore the  time  limited  in  the  statute. 

In  Barbadoes,  with  a population  of  140,000,  only  20,000 
were  whites.  In  Jamaica,  with  a population  of  450,000,  only 
37,000  were  whites. 

In  all  the  British  emancipated  colonies,  with  a population 
of  about  1,125,000,  only  about  131,000  were  whites,  being  a 
little  more  than  one-ninth  part.  Yet  the  tranquillity  of  the 
inhabitants  was  not  in  the  slightest  degree  disturbed.  The 
testimony  on  this  point  has  never  been  questioned.  The  Gov- 
ernor of  Jamaica,  Sir  Lionel  Smith,  in  his  speech  to  the  As- 
sembly, October  30,  1838,  said : 

“ The  conduct  of  the  laboring  population,  who  were  the  objects  of  your 
liberal  and  enlightened  policy,  entitles  them  to  the  highest  praise,  and  proves 
how  well  they  deseryed  the  boon  of  freedom.”  “ I trust  there  is  every 
'prospect  of  agricultural  prosperity.” 

To  this  speech  the  Assembly  of  Jamaica  responded  thus: 

“ The  House  join  with  your  Excellency  in  bearing  testimony  to  the  peace- 
ful manner  in  which  the  laboring  population  have  conducted  themselves  in  a 
state  of  freedom.” 

Queen  Victoria,  in  her  speech  to  the  British  Parliament, 
February  5,  1839,  said : 

“ It  is  with  great  satisfaction  that  I am  enabled  to  inform  you,  that 
throughout  the  whole  of  my  "West  India  possessions,  the  period  fixed  by  law 
for  the  complete  and  final  emancipation  of  the  negroes,  has  been  anticipated 
by  acts  of  the  colonial  legislatures,  and  that  the  transition  from  the  temporary 
system  of  apprenticeship  to  entire  freedom,  has  taken  place  without  any 

DISTURBANCE  OF  PUBLIC  ORDER  AND  TRANQUILLITY.” 

The  islands,  since  emancipation  took  place,  have  been  re- 
peatedly visited  by  philanthropists  well  known  in  both  hem- 
ispheres, for  the  purpose  of  collecting  information  concerning 
the  workings  of  freedom.  James  A.  Thome,  of  Kentucky, 
(afterwards  Professor  at  Oberlin,)  in  company  with  Joseph  H. 
Kimball  of  New  Hampshire,  went  thither  in  November,  1836, 
and  returned  in  June,  1837.  Joseph  Sturge  and  Thomas 


374 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


Harvey  of  England  took  an  elaborate  survey  in  1837.  Joseph 
John  Gurney  followed  in  1839-40.  The  results  of  these  seve-' 
ral  investigations  are  before  the  public  in  three  interesting 
volumes.*  The  trustworthiness  of  these  highly  respectable 
and  competent  witnesses  has  never  been  questioned.  They 
all  agree,  substantially,  in  the  particulars  which  follow,  and 
which  are  extracted  from  the  work  of  Thome  and  Kimball. 
Similar  facts  and  testimonials  have  since  been  officially  re- 
ported to  the  British  Government,  and  published  in  the 
British  Anti-Slavery  Reporter.  The  information  on  which 
the  following  propositions  were  founded,  was  obtained  from 
large  numbers  of  the  principal  planters,  magistrates,  and  pro- 
fessional gentlemen  on  the  island  of  Antigua,  whose  names 
are  preserved  in  the  volume,  with  their  testimony  in  their  own 
words.  We  give  only  the  substance  of  the  principal  state- 
ments. 

1.  “ The  transition  from  slavery  to  freedom  was  a great  revolution,  by 
which  a prodigious  change  was  effected  in  the  condition  of  the  negroes.” 

2.  “ Emancipation  (in  distinction  from  apprenticeship,)  was  the  result  of 
political  and  pecuniary  considerations,  merely.” 

3.  “ The  event  of  emancipation  passed  peaceably.  The  gloomiest  antici- 
pations had  been  previously  entertained.” 

4.  “ There  has  been,  since  emancipation,  not  only  no  rebellion  in  fact,  but 
no  fear  of  it.” 

5.  “There  has  been  no  fear  of  house-breaking,  highway  robberies,  and 
like  misdemeanors,  since  emancipation.” 

6.  “ Emancipation  is  regarded,  by  all  classes,  as  a great  blessing  to  the 
island.” 

7.  “ Free  labor  is  decidedly  less  expensive  than  slave  labor.” 

8.  “ The  negroes  work  more  cheerfully,  and  do  their  work  better.” 

9.  “ The  negroes  are  more  easily  managed  as  freemen,  than  they  were 
when  slaves.” 

10.  “ The  negroes  are  more  trustworthy,  and  take  a deeper  interest  in 
their  employer’s  affairs,  since  emancipation.” 

11.  “The  experiment  of  Antigua  proves  that  emancipated  slaves  can 
appreciate  law.” 


(1.)  Journal  of  J.  A.  Thome  and  J.  Id.  Kimball. 

(2.)  The  West  Indies,  in  1837,  by  Joseph  Sturge  and  Thomas  Harvey. 
(3.)  Letters  to  Henry  Clay,  &c.,  by  Joseph  John  Gurney. 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM.  375 

12.  li  The  emancipated  negroes  have  shown  no  disposition  to  roam  from 
place  to  place.” 

13.  The  gift  of  unrestricted  freedom,  though  so  suddenly  bestowed,  has 
not  made  the  negroes  more  insolent  than  they  were  while  slaves,  but  has 
rendered  them  less  so.” 

14.  “ Emancipation  has  demonstrated  that  gratitude  is  a prominent  trait 
of  negro  character.” 

15.  “ The  freed  negroes  have  proved  that  they  are  able  to  take  care  of 
themselves.” 

16.  “ Emancipation  has  operated  at  once  to  elevate  and  improve  the 
negroes.” 

17.  “ Emancipation  promises  a vast  improvement  in  the  condition  of 
woman.” 

IS.  “ Real  estate  has  risen  in  value  since  emancipation,  mercantile  and 
mechanical  operations  have  received  a fresh  impulse,  and  the  general  con- 
dition of  the  country  is  decidedly  more  flourishing  than  at  any  former 
period.” 

19.  “ Emancipation  has  been  followed  by  the  introduction  of  labor-saving 
machinery.” 

20.  .“  Emancipation  has  produced  the  most  decided  change  in  the  views 
of  the  planters.” 

21.  The  progress  of  anti-slavery  discussions  in  England  did  not  cause 
the  masters  to  treat  their  slaves  worse,  but,  on  the  contrary,  restrained  them 
from  outrage.” 

For  other  similar  statements  we  have  not  room.  Distorted 
rumors  have  sometimes  reached  us  from  the  islands,  set  afloat 
bj  interested  managers  and  speculators,  who,  in  the  absence 
of  the  owners  (many  of  whom  reside  in  England)  desire  to 
depreciate  the  price  of  property,  that  they  might  become  pur- 
chasers. The  droughts  have,  once  or  twice,  occasioned  short 
crops.  The  embarrassments  of  estates  arising  under  the  old 
system  have  not  disappeared  instantly,  and  sometimes  have 
resulted  in  bankruptcy  as  formerly. 

It  is  painful  to  add,  that  in  Jamaica  and  Barbadoes,  and 
some  other  islands,  the  Colonial  Governments  have,  in  various 
ways,  oppressed  and  harassed  the  laborers,  to  diminish  their 
wages,  and  prevent  them  from  becoming  proprietors  of  land. 
The  fact  that  the  negroes,  to  some  extent,  were  becoming  self- 
employers, has  been  made  a pretext  for  introducing  coolies 
from  the  East  Indies,  and  treating  them  as  though  they  were 


376 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


slaves,  insomuch  that  the  British  Government  has  been  obliged  i 
to  interfere. 

The  abolition  of  slavery  in  the  British  West  Indies  liberated 
800,000  slaves.  This  was  followed,  in  1843,  by  the  abolition 
of  slavery  throughout  the  British  dominions,  which  liberated 
more  than  twelve  millions  in  the  East  Indies. 

The  history  of  British  anti-slavery  effort  and  its  results,  is 
instructive  in  more  aspects  than  one.  It  shows,  in  the  strong 
light  of  practical  experiment,  the  worthlessness  of  all  partial, 
temporizing  efforts,  all  schemes  of  preparation,  amelioration, 
and  gradualism,  in  striking  contrast  with  the  efficiency,  power, 
safety,  and  success  of  efforts  for  a thorough,  uncompromising, 
and  radical  removal  of  the  evil.  It  shows  the  utter  incom- 
patibility of  slavery  with  a Christianity  that  earnestly  attempts 
anything  for  the  religious  instruction  and  education  of  the 
slaves.  It  shows  the  resistless  power  of  the  religious  senti- 
ment of  a country  to  mould  at  its  pleasure,  to  preserve  or  to 
overthrow  the  legislation  of  a country.  It  assures  us  that 
whenever  the  prevailing  and  recognized  religion  of  America 
decrees  the  downfall  of  American  slavery,  it  will  fall.  It  re- 
veals to  us  the  power  of  an  enlightened  public  sentiment  over 
a government  less  popular  than  our  own.  It  exhibits  to  us 
the  fiction  of  the  legality  of  slavery  holding  a great  nation  in 
fetters  until  exploded  by  the  kindling  lights  of  religion  and 
freedom.  It  shows  us  the  power  of  a right-minded  and  per- 
severing minority,  through  the  good  Providence  of  God,  to 
overcome  mountains*  of  opposition,  and  dispel  a chaos  of 
error.  It  demonstrates  that  the  increasing  rage  and  madness 
of  oppressors  is  the  sure  presage  of  hastening  deliverance  to 
the  oppressed. 

* It  is  a mistake  to  suppose,  as  some  do,  that  because  the  West  Indies  were  remote 
from  Great  Britain,  the  slave  power  exerted  but  little  influence  on  the  home  Gov- 
ernment. There  was  a time  when  it  virtually  bribed  the  courts,  controlled  Parlia- 
ment, and  stood  behind  the  throne.  Statesmen  and  nobles,  not  to  say  monarchs 
and  members  of  the  royal  family,  were  suspected  of  being  secret  partners  in  the 
African  slave  trade,  or  openly  held  investments  in  West  India  plantations.  A large 
portion  of  the  W est  India  proprietors  resided  in  England,  and  wielded  a command- 
ing influence.  A large  share  of  the  £20,000,000  compensation  voted  by  Parliament, 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


377 


CHAPTER  XXXI. 

DISTINCTIVE  FEATURES  OF  AMERICAN  SLAVERY. 

Its  essential  principle — Human  Chattelhood — Integral  parts  of  the  system — Its  con- 
sistency and  unity — Agreement  of  the  theory  with  the  practice — Slavery  cannot 
eo-exist  with  liberty. 

From  tlie  scenes  and  achievements  of  British  philanthro- 
py, and  of  West  India  Emancipation,  we  come  back  again 
to  our  own  land  of  boasted  liberty  and  cherished  human 
chattelhood, — the  land  in  which  about  113,000  slaveholders 
control  twenty  millions  of  human  beings, — and  where  the 
question  still  hangs  in  suspense,  whether  the  yoke  can  be 
broken.  Before  entering  upon  the  history  of  the  present 
struggle,  it  may  be  well  to  look  directly  into  the  face  of  the 
monster  to  be  grappled  with,  and  see  wherein  its  strength 
lies. 

what  is  slavery? 

“ The  slave  is  one  who  is  in  the  power  of  a master  to  whom  he  belongs.” 
—Louisiana  Civil  Code , Art.  35.  “ Slaves  shall  be  deemed,  sold,  taken, 

reputed,  and  adjudged  in  law  to  be  chattels  personal,  in  the  hands  of 
their  owners  and  possessors,  and  their  executors,  administrators,  and  assigns, 
to  all  intents,  constructions,  and  purposes,  whatsoever.” — Law  of  South 
Carolina , 2 Brev.  Dig.  229,  Prince's  Dig.  446,  &c. 

“ The  cardinal  principle  of  slavery,  that  the  slave  is  not  to  be  ranked 


never  went  to  the  West  Indies  to  improve  the  plantations  there  ; hut  remained  in 
England,  some  of  it  in  the  hands  of  dissolute  nabobs,  some  in  the  hands  of  mer- 
chants and  mortgagees,  in  consequence  of  the  West  India  estates  being  deeply 
involved  in  debt  by  the  system  of  slavery.  This,  with  the  continued  absence  of 
owners  from  their  plantations,  partly  accounts  for  the  reports  which  we  still  hear, 
of  the  pecuniary  embarrassments  and  thriftlessness  of  many  West  India  plantations. 


378 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


among  sentient  beings,  but  among  things,  as  an  article  of  property,  a chatte 
personal,  obtains  as  undoubted  law,  in  all  these  [slave]  States.” — Stroud''. 
Sketch,  p.  23. 

This,  tlien,  is  slavery,  as  it  exists  in  America.  God  create* 
man  in  His  own  image.  He  made  him  a little  lower  than  tb 
angels,  crowned  him  with  glory  and  honor,  and  gave  him  do 
minion  over  the  beasts  of  the  field.  But  slavery  reduces  bin 
to  a thing,  a commodity,  an  article  of  merchandise ! 

This  is  no  flourish  of  rhetoric — no  idle  abstraction.  S< 
far  as  the  power  of  man  can  accomplish  such  a result,  it  i: 
accomplished  by  slavery.  If  it  cannot  take  away  the  im 
mortal  soul  of  man,  it  deems,  reputes,  and  adjudges  him  t( 
have  none  ! It  ranks  him,  not  a little  lower  than  the  angels 
but  on  a level  with  the  beasts  that  perish  ! 

The  question  of  slavery  or  emancipation  is  not  a questior 
of  cruel  treatment  or  of  kind  treatment — of  starvation  or  ol 
full  feeding.  It  is  a question  whether  a man  is  to  be  re 
cognized  as  a man,  or  as  a brute — a person  or  a thing — i 
spiritual,  moral  being,  or  a mere  lump  of  matter— a beinc 
gifted  with  volition  and  clothed  with  responsibility,  or  a men 
piece  of  machinery — a being  with,  or  without,  rights,  whicl 
the  laws  should  protect. 

INTEGRAL  PARTS  OF  THE  SLAVE  SYSTEM. 

These  are  such  as  are  involved,  of  necessity,  in  the  car- 
dinal principle  of  slavery,  viz. : human  cliattelhoocl.  We  enu- 
merate the  following  : 

1.  The  unlimited  authority  of  the  slave-master  or  owner. 

2.  The  abrogation  of  marriage,  and  the  family  relation, 
among  slaves. 

3.  The  power  to  enforce  labor  without  wages. 

4.  The  incapacity  of  the  slave  to  acquire  or  hold  property. 

5.  His  incapacity  to  make  contracts  or  bargains. 

6.  His  incapacity  to  enjoy  civil,  domestic  or  political  rights. 

7.  The  liability  of  the  slave  to  be  sold,  like  other  chattels, 
and  separated  from  relatives.  The  authorized  prosecution  of 
the  SLAVE  TRADE  ! 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM.  379 

8.  The  absence  of  any  adequate  legal  protection  for  the 
slave. 

9.  The  power  of  the  master  to  forbid  education  and  social 
religious  worship,  at  his  own  discretion. 

10.  The  power  of  the  legislatures  of  slave  states  to  prohibit 
education,  even  by  the  masters,  and  to  prohibit  or  restrict  free 
social  worship. 

11.  The  power  of  the  legislatures  of  slave  states  to  abolish 
freedom  of  speech  and  of  the  press,  in  general. 

CONSISTENCY  AND  UNITY  OF  THE  SLAVE  SYSTEM. 

The  theory  of  American  slavery  agrees  with  its  practice. 
The  whole  system  of  slave  legislation  grows  legitimately  out 
of  the  chattel  principle  upon  which  slavery  is  founded.  And 
the  most  revolting  usages  and  practices  to  be  detected  among 
the  incidents  and  workings  of  the  system  are  found  to  be  in 
perfect  keeping  and  harmony,  both  with  the  principle  of  hu- 
man chattelhood  and  with  the  slave  code. 

1.  The  very  idea  of  human  chattelhood  involves  the  idea 
of  the  unlimited  control  of  the  master,  and  the  absolute  de- 
fenselessness of  the  slave.  Habits  of  tyranny  and  of  ser- 
vility must  follow,  of  course,  with  all  the  insecurity  and 
outrage  that  grow  out  of  them. 

2.  The  absence  of  legal  marriage,  and  of  the  protected 
family  relation,  is  manifestly  essential-  to  the  idea  of  human 
chattelhood.  Chattels  are  not  married,  and  cannot  constitute 
families.  Chattels  may  be  transferred,  bought,  sold,  and  used. 
The  promiscuous  intercourse  of  the  sexes,  especially  at  the 
bidding  of  the  master,  follows,  of  course,  and  is  not  to  be 
censured  by  those  who  consent  to  the  system,  or  to  the  prac- 
tice of  slaveholding. 

3.  Chattels  never  receive  wages,  or  acquire  or  hold  pro- 
perty. The  deep  poverty  of  the  slave,  and  all  the  effects 
of  that  poverty,  with  the  absence  of  a motive  to  labor,  fol- 
low, of  course. 

4.  Chattels  can  make  no  contracts,  not  even  the  contract  of 
marriage.  And  this  is  the  law  of  the  slave. 


380 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


5.  Chattels  can  have  no  rights,  and  hence  the  slave  cai 
have  none. 

6.  Chattels  may  be  bought  and  sold.  Hence  the  existence 
of  slavery  involves,  of  necessity,  the  slave  trade,  as  Henr 
Clay  testifies. — Speech  in  the  U.  S.  Senate , 1839. 

7.  Chattels  can  claim  no  legal  protection,  and  therefore  tin 
slave  can  have  none.  And  all  the  cruelties  of  slavery  mus 
be  tolerated. 

8.  Chattels  are  not  to  be  educated,  or  instructed  in  religion 
The  idea  is  an  absurdity.  If  the  slaveholders  are  right  ir 
holding  slaves  as  chattels,  they  cannot  be  blamed  for  with 
holding  education  and  religious  privileges  from  them.  If  tin 
government  may  sanction  or  permit  slaveholding,  it  must, 
to  be  consistent  with  itself,  prohibit  literary  and  religious 
instruction. 

9.  The  same  may  be  said  of  the  laws  forbidding  freedom 
of  speech  and  of  the  press.  Such  freedom  is  manifestly  im- 
practicable and  unsafe  in  the  presence  of  chattel  slavery.  The 
entire  South  attests  this  ; and  thus  far  the  testimony  is  truth- 
ful. If  slavery  is  to  be  maintained,  or  even  tolerated,  then 
liberty,  of  course,  is  to  be  relinquished.  This  is  self-evident. 

The  statutes  of  the  slave  states  abundantly  confirm  the  pre- 
ceding statements,  as  will  appear  by  consulting  Judge  Stroud’s 
“Sketch  of  the  Slave  Laws,”  published  at  Philadelphia  in  the 
year  1827.  The  “ Blatk  Code  of  the  District  of  Columbia,” 
by  W.  Gr.  Snethen,  Esq.,  will  show  that  some  of  the  worst 
features  of  the  system  are  sanctioned  on  the  national  hearth- 
stone, and  under  “ exclusive  jurisdiction  of  Congress.”  And 
“Wheeler’s  Law  of  Slavey,”  (a  large  volume  of  “Reports”) 
attests  that  slave  enactments  are  not  a dead  letter. 

It  has  sometimes  been  represented  that  the  severe  laws  of 
the  South,  especially  those  forbidding  education  and  free  re- 
ligious meetings  to  slaves  and  free  people  of  color,  are  wholly 
or  chiefly  owing  to  the  impertinent  agitations  of  abolitionists, 
whose  mischievous  efforts,  it  is  said,  have  made  such  regula- 
tions necessary,  or  have  furnished  occasions  or  pretexts  for 
them.  The  ready  answer  to  this,  is  that  the  enactments  in 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


381 


question  are  found  in  “Stroud’s  Sketch,”  published  in  1827, 
five  years  before  the  organization  of  the  “modern”  anti-slave- 
ry societies  commenced,  four  years  before  the  “ Liberator  ” was 
.ssued  by  Mr.  Garrison  ; and  that,  according  to  Judge  Stroud, 
die  principal  acts  of  that  character,  cited  by  him,  bear  date 
from  1740  to  1770,  long  before  the  organization  of  the  old 
Anti-slavery  Societies,  by  Jay  and  Franklin.  So  well  known 
s this  fact  that  occasion  has  sometimes  been  taken  from  it,  to 
represent  these  severe  laws  as  being  antiquated,  obsolete,  and 
i dead  letter  ! For  the  refutation  of  this  falsehood,  we  have 
only  to  cite  the  testimony  of  the  Presbyterian  Synods  of 
Kentucky  and  of  South  Carolina  and  Georgia,  and  the  Vir- 
ginia Eevised  Code  of  1819.  A mass  of  authenticated  facts, 
chiefly  sustained  by  Southern  testimony,  and  showing  that  the 
practical  workings  of  the  system  correspond,  at  all  points, 
with  the  statutes  defining  it,  may  be  found  in  a volume  en- 
titled “American  Slavery  as  it  is,  by  the  testimony  of  a 
thousand  witnesses,” — also  in  several  unimpeachable  narra- 
tives, and  the  Southern  newspapers  of  every  month  in  the 
year.  “ No  people,”  says  the  philosophical  and  learned  Dr. 
Priestley,  “have  ever  been  found  to  be  better  than  their  laws, 
.though  many  have  been  known  to  be  worse.” 

Such  is  the  system  that  controls  and  wields  the  Government 
of  the  United  States,  as  shown  in  preceding  chapters. 

Such  is  the  system,  sheltered  and  sanctioned,  as  we  have 
already  seen,  in  the  prominent  religious  sects  in  this  country, 
— the  system  which  the  Christianity  of  the  country  must  over- 
throw,— or  to  which  it  must  succumb  and  conform. 

Such  is  the  system  with  which  human  liberty , in  America, 
is  summoned  to  contend,  or  to  which  it  must  yield. 

Who  are  enlisted  in  the  struggle  ? What  are  they  doing  ? 
What  are  the  prospects  before  them  ? These  are  amongst  the 
questions  before  us,  in  the  succeeding  chapters. 


382 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


CHAPTER  XXXII. 

THE  PRESENT  ANTI-SLAVERY  AGITATION  IN  AMERICA — ITS 
CAUSES,  ORIGIN,  AND  CHARACTER. 

Discussions  caused  by  the  Missouri  Compromise — Rebuke  of  the  dough-faces  at  the 
ballot-box,  1820 — Benjamin  Lundy,  1821  and  afterwards — Missionary  enterprise 
advocated  as  the  harbinger  of  universal  liberty — Revived  doctrine  (among  active 
Christians)  of  immediate  and  unconditional  repentance — This  doctrine  antago- 
nistic to  conservatists  in  the  Church,  and  their  Colonization  Society — Spirit  of 
ethical  inquiry — Social  Reforms — Temperance — Peace — An  age  of  newspapers, 
lecturers,  lyceums,  popular  discussions,  and  voluntary  Associations — William 
Lloyd  Garrison,  a printer,  a Temperance  Editor — Associates  with  Benjamin  Lundy 
at  Baltimore,  1829 — Imprisonment,  trial,  and  release,  1830 — Established  his  “Lib- 
erator” at  Boston,  1831 — Panic  caused  by  insurrection  in  Virginia — New  England 
Anti-Slavery  Society  formed,  1832 — Other  Journals — Anti-Slavery  tracts  issued  by 
Messrs.  Tappan  and  others,  New  York — N.  Y.  Emancipator  commenced,  1833- 
Miss  Crandall’s  School,  Connecticut— N.  Y.  City  A.  S.  Soc.  organized,  Oct.,  1833 
— American  A.  S.  Soc.  at  Philadelphia,  Dec.,  1833 — Principles  and  measures  of 
Abolitionists. 


If  the  reader  of  the  preceding  chapters  shall  have  suffi- 
ciently pondered  the  character  of  American  slavery,  and  the 
position  of  the  churches  and  of  the  Federal  Government  in 
respect  to  it,  he  will  now  perhaps  be  able  to  form  some  intel- 
ligent opinion  concerning  the  condition  and  prospects  of 
liberty  in  America,  at  the  time  when  the  present  agitation  of 
the  slave  question  commenced.  He  will  be  able  to  judge 
whether  such  an  agitation  then  was  unnecessary,  impertinent, 
ill-judged,  unfortunate,  or  ill-timed.  And  when  he  learns,  in 
the  perusal  of  this  chapter,  the  principles,  the  aims,  and  the 
measures  of  the  abolitionists,  he  may  be  ready  to  judge  whe- 
ther, or  how  far,  they  offended  against  the  rules  of  decorum 
and  prudence ; and  whether  the  opposition  they  encountered 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


383 


svas  anything  more  than  might  have  been  expected  from  the 
leading  men,  and  the  controlling  influences,  in  Church  and 
State,  that  have  already  been  described,  however  wise  and 
prudent  may  have  been  the  persons  earnestly  and  resolutely 
engaged  in  the  effort  against  slavery. 

It  is  not  easy,  perhaps  not  possible,  to  trace  all  the  latent 
causes  which,  like  little  rivulets  running  together,  produced 
the  present  agitation  of  the  slave  question,  as  other  popular 
agitations  are  produced.  We  shall  mention  such  as  are 
within  our  knowledge,  without  pretending  to  enumerate 
them  all. 

The  year  1820,  after  a long  period  of  quiet,  was  distin- 
guished by  a pretty  general  and  earnest  discussion  of  slavery, 
growing  out  of  the  debates  in  Congress  concerning  the  admis- 
sion of  Missouri,  and  the  adjustment  of  that  controversy  by 
the  Missouri  Compromise.  Mr.  Clay,  the  author  of  that  mea- 
sure, and  those  who  co-operated  with  him,  congratulated 
themselves  with  the  success  of  the  policy.  As  lately  as 
1850,  Mr.  Clay  alluded  to  it  in  the  Senate,  while  his  “omni- 
bus” compromise  was  pending,  reminding  senators  of  its  suc- 
cess, and  boastfully  assuring  them  that  his  second  compromise 
would  be  equally  efficacious  in  allaying  the  popular  ferment, 
and  restoring  peace. 

It  is  undoubtedly  true  that  the  Missouri  Compromise,  like 
all  other  compromises  between  right  and  wrong,  did  induce  a 
moral  paralysis  in  those  who  assented  to  it,  and  this  is  what 
Mr.  Clay  denominates  peace.  But  the  people  did  not  all  hold 
themselves  parties  to  that  compromise,  nor  participate  in  its 
benumbing  effects.  The  spark  of  liberty  was  a fire  pent  up 
in  their  bones.  Though  temporarily  baffled,  they  were  not 
conquered.  If  the  national  “Vesuvius  was  capped”  fora  few 
years,  it  was  only  that  it  might  burst  forth  again  with  fresh 
vigor.  If  Henry  Clay  could  but  have  known  how  many 
were  made  uncompromising  abolitionists  by  their  disgust  with 
that  unholy  compromise,  he  would  have  found  less  occasion 
to  congratulate  himself  with  the  results.  The  present  anti- 
slavery excitement  may  be  distinctly  traced,  in  part,  to  the 


384 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


earnest  debates  among  tbe  people  elicited  by  that  same  Mis- 
souri Compromise.  Tbe  ‘‘settlement”  of  tbe  question  by 
Congress  was  only  tbe  signal  for  its  agitation  among  tbeir 
constituents. 

Tbe  Congressional  elections  of  1820  were  extensively 
affected  by  tbe  previous  votes  of  tbe  Representatives  on  tbe 
admission  of  Missouri.  Tbe  recreants  to  liberty  were  regarded 
as  marked  men,  especially  those  wbo  bad  falsified  tbeir  own 
previous  professions,  and  ricbly  merited  tbe  expressive  epi- 
thet, “ dough-faces,”*  then  coined  and  bestowed  upon  them 
by  tbe  eccentric  John  Randolph,  of  Roanoke.  In  some, 
instances  they  took  tbe  bint  of  tbeir  friends,  and  quietly 
withdrew  from  public  life.  In  other  cases,  tbeir  old  asso- 
ciates declined  to  nominate  them.  Some  were  nominated, 
only  to  be  defeated.  Others,  Avbo  bad  previously  defied  all 
competitors,  were  subjected  to  tbe  mortification  of  being 
re-elected  by  a diminished  vote,  barely  escaping  defeat,  after 
tbe  most  strenuous  exertions  of  tbeir  supporters,  admonishing 
them  never  to  hazard  tbe  chances  again. 

This  latter  was  tbe  fate  of  tbe  very  distinguished  and 
highly-gifted  Representative  from  Rhode  Island,  f Tbe  con- 
troversy was  carried  on  during  the  whole  summer  by  news- 
paper discussions,  and  public  meetings,  and  debates.  Party 
tactics  and  party  discipline  were  resorted  to,  with  little  effect ; 
party  lines,  for  tbe  time  being,  were  well  nigh  erased,  and  tbe 
terms  “anti-slavery”  and  “pro-slavery”  took  tbe  place  of 
Federalist  and  Republican.  Tbe  files  of  newspapers,  particu- 
larly tbe  Providence  Gazette, % bear  testimony  that  tbe  discus- 


* This  term,  as  now  commonly  used  and  understood,  expressively  characterizes 
the  politician,  whose  face,  as  flexible  as  “ dough,”  and  belonging  to  a head  equally 
soft,  may  he  moulded  by  others  into  any  shape  that  best  suits  them.  But  it  is 
thought  by  some  that  the  epithet  intended  by  Mr.  Randolph  was  “ doe-faces,”  in 
allusion  to  the  timidity  of  the  female  deer,  who  attempts  to  drink,  but  starts  back 
at  the  reflection  of  its  own  face  in  the  water.  “ They  saw,”  said  he,  “ their  own  doe- 
faces,  and  were  frightened.”  * 

t The  late  Hon.  Samuel  Eddy,  of  Providence.  Mr.  Hazard,  his  associate,  a less 
popular  candidate,  was  dropped  from  the  ticket,  on  election  day,  by  his  own 
partisans. 

t The  Providence  Gazette  was  a Federal  paper.  Mr.  Eddy  was  supported  by  the 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


385 


sion  became  as  “ radical”  then,  as  it  is  now,  and  that  nearly 
:he  same  arguments,  pro  and  con.,  were  then  in  use.  Some 
who  commenced  writing  against  slavery  and  “ compromise,” 
;hen,  have  not  ceased  writing  against  them  still.  The  author 
nay  be  permitted  to  record  himself  among  these.  Mr.  Eddy 
was  elected  by  a majority  of  less  than  one  hundred  votes. 

The  anti-slavery  agitation  of  1820  was  not  confined  to 
Rhode  Island,  or  even  to  New  England.  It  extended 
;hroughout  the  non-slaveholding  States.  By  many  of  the 
‘Friends”  and  other  opponents  of  slavery,  the  “Missouri 
Compromise  ” was  unsparingly  condemned ; but  the  deed  was 
lone,  and  there  seemed  no  political  remedy  at  hand,  but  the 
political  repudiation  of  the  authors,  which,  very  extensively, 
;ook  effect.  To  this  day,  we  find,  in  various  parts  of  the 
country,  a remnant  of  the  anti-slavery  agitators  of  that  period, 
md  recognize  some  of  the  old  familiar  names  in  the  proceedings 
)f  the  Anti-slavery  and  Free  Soil  conventions  of  the  present 
;imes.  The  late  Benjamin  Lundy  was  probably  moved  by 
he  Missouri  contest  and  compromise,  to  engage  in  his  arduous 
mti-slavery  labors.  He  seems  to  have  entered  the  field  that 
same  year,  and  commenced  ^the  publication  of  his  monthly 
periodical,  the  “ Genius  of  Universal  Emancipation,”  the  year 
allowing,  1821.  In  an  appeal  to  the  public  in  April,  1830, 
le  says : 

“I  have,  within  the  period  above  mentioned,  (ten  years,)  sacrificed  seve- 
al  thousand  dollars  of  my  own  hard  earnings,  have  travelled  upwards  of  five 
housand  miles  on  foot,  and  more  than  twenty  thousand  in  other  ways  ; have 
isited  nineteen  States  of  this  Union,  and  held  more  than  two  hundred  pub- 
ic meetings — have  performed  two  voyages  to  the  West  Indies,  by  which 
neans  the  liberation  of  a considerable  number  of  slaves  has  been  effected, 
md,  I hope,  the  way  paved  for  the  enlargement  of  many  more.” 

At  Philadelphia,  at  Baltimore,  at  Washington  City,  he  suc- 
;essively  published  his  paper.  In  1828,  while  located  at  Bal- 


Pemocratic  papers,  as  being  the  nominee  of  that  party.  Until  Iris  obnoxious  vote 
n Congress,  he  was  so  acceptable  to  both  parties,  that  no  opposing  nomination  was 
nade  against  him.  But  now  he  was  deserted  by  the  “ rank  and  file”  of  both  parties, 
o a great  extent. 


25 


386 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


timore,  lie  visited  various  parts  of  New  England,  to  extern 
the  circulation  of  his  paper,  and  stir  up  the  friends  of  the  en' 
slaved.  He  visited  Texas  twice,  and  penetrated  into  Mexico 
in  search  of  some  better  asylum  for  fugitive  and  emancipate! 
slaves.  Though  failing  to  accomplish  this  object,  he  possessec 
himself  of  much  invaluable  information,  which  afterwards  be 
came  of  the  highest  importance  to  the  cause  in  which  he  wa, 
engaged,  and  to  the  country  at  large.  It  was  chiefly  to  com 
munications  from  Benjamin  Lundy  that  John  Quincy  Adam: 
was  indebted  for  those  astounding  disclosures  concerning  tin 
Texas  plot  with  which  he  so  suddenly  electrified  Congres, 
and  the  nation,  in  1836.  A more  full  account  of  the  particu 
lars  was  afterwards  published  by  Mr.  Lundy  himself  in  ; 
paper  issued  at  Philadelphia  for  that  purpose.  This  time! 
information  put  the  friends  of  liberty  upon  the  track  by  which 
though  failing  to  exclude  Texas  from  the  Union,  they  hav 
succeeded,  thus  far,  in  arresting  the  quiet  march  of  the  slav 
power  to  the  Pacific,  thus  sending  a thrill  of  alarm  and  rag 
through  the  whole  South.  Thus  does  Divine  Providene 
raise  up  and  direct  the  voluntary  instruments  of  its  high  de 
signs.  Benjamin  Lundy  was  $ member  of  the  Society  oi 
Friends ; he  was  small  in  stature,  of  feeble  health,  afflictei1 
with  deafness,  less  definite  than  some  abolitionists  in  his  anti 
slavery  ethics  and  measures,  but  of  indomitable  purpose,  per 
severance,  faith,  courage,  patience,  self-denial,  endurance,  am 
by  dint  of  these,  became  a pioneer  in  the  oause.  At  one  tim 
he  traversed  the  free  States,  lecturing,  collecting,  obtaining 
subscribers,  writing  for  his  paper,  getting  it  printed,  monthly 
wherever  he  could  conveniently  have  it  printed,  for  once 
stopping  himself  to  read  the  “ proof^”  and  direct  and  mail  hi 
papers,  then  travelling  on  again  another  month,  and  carryin; 
in  his  trunk  his  “direction  book,”  “ column  rules,”  and  typ< 
“heading,”  (with  the  date  of  “ Baltimore,”)  to  facilitate  tb 
process.  Such  are  the  labors  of  men  who  commence  mora 
revolutions,  to  be  completed  by  others  after  they  have  gon 
off  the  stage. 

Among  the  early  pioneers  of  the  cause,  should  be  mentionei 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


387 


the  name  of  Rev.  John  Rankin,  a Presbyterian  minister  of 
Kentucky,  now  of  Ripley,  Ohio.  In  1824  or  1825,  he  publish- 
ed his  Letters  on  Slavery,  maintaining  its  inherent  sinfulness, 
and  enforcing  the  duty  of  its  present  abandonment.  Through 
his  influence  an  anti-slavery  society,  on  the  same  principle, 
was  formed  in  Kentucky,  at  that  early  period.  It  was  after- 
wards, however,  “ laid  asleep  ” (to  use  the  words  of  Mr.  Ran- 
kin,) by  the  illusive  pretensions  and  seductive  influences  of 
the  Colonization  Society. 

There  were  moral,  religious,  and  social  influences  at  work, 
preparatory  to  an  unprecedented  agitation  of  the  slave  ques- 
tion. The  missionary  enterprise,  in  its  youthful  vigor,  was 
an  effort  for  “evangelizing  the  world.”  It  was  deliberately 
proposed  as  a work  to  be  done.  It  was  based  on  a belief  that 
the  promises  and  predictions  of  the  Scriptures  afforded  a di- 
vine guaranty  for  its  accomplishment.  Bible,  Tract,  and  Edu- 
cation Societies  were  commended  and  patronized  as  auxiliaries 
to  this  magnificent  undertaking.  The  anniversaries  of  these 
were  enlivened  with  glowing  descriptions  of  the  approaching 
millennium,  when  all  should  know  the  Lord,  from  the  least  to 
the  greatest,  and  sit  under  their  own  vines  and  fig-trees,  secure 
in  their  rights.  The  eloquence  of  a Beecher,  a Rice,  a Corne- 
lius, a Summerfield,  and  a Spring,  on  such  occasions,  had  sent 
a thrill  through  the  churches,  and  the  promised  day  was  be- 
lieved to  have  already  dawned.  The  time  was  set  for  furnish- 
ing every  family  on  the  earth  with  Bibles.  The  chronology 
of  the  prophetic  periods  was  computed,  and  the  close  of  the 
present  century,  it  was  believed,  was  to  witness  the  completed 
work  of  the  “ conversion  of  the  world.”  To  be  “ up  and  do- 
ing ” was  the  watchword,  and  our  American  love  of  liberty, 
equality,  and  “free  institutions,”  was  gratified  with  the  assu- 
rance that  all  the  despotisms  of  the  earth  were  to  crumble  at 
the  Prince  Emanuel’s  approach  ! 

Was  all  this  to  be  accomplished  without  Bibles,  and  educa- 
tion, and  marriage,  and  family  sanctities,  and  liberation  for 
American  slaves  ? Who  could  believe  it  ? Whatever  our 
missionary  and  evangelizing  orators  intended,  whatever  they 


888 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


were  thinking  of,  they  were  God’s  instruments  for  putting 
into  the  minds  of  others  “thoughts  that  burned/’  for  the- 
emancipation  of  the  enslaved.  The  writer  and  many  others 
well  remember  that  the  tone  of  our  May  anniversaries  of  reli- 
gious societies,  from  1825  to  1832,  was  such  as  has  been  de- 
scribed. And  the  suddenness  with  which  this  tone  was 
changed,  when  bibles,  education,  and  family  sanctities  were 
demanded  for  slaves,  did  not  escape  notice.  But  the  fires 
kindled  could  not  be  extinguished. 

The  same  period  was  distinguished  by  “ revivals  of  reli- 
gion,” in  which  prominence  was  given  to  the  old  doctrine 
of  Hopkins  and  Edwards,  demanding  “ immediate  and  uncon- 
ditional repentance  ” of  all  sin,  as  the  only  condition  of  for- 
giveness and  salvation.  This  was  urged  in  direct  opposition 
to  the  vague  idea  of  a gradual  amendment,  admitting  “a  more 
convenient  season” — a prospective,  dilatory,  indefinite  break- 
ing off  from  transgression — an  idea  that  had  been  settling 
upon  the  churches  for  thirty  or  forty  years  previous, — an  in- 
cubus upon  every  righteous  cause,  and  every  holy  endeavor. 
It  is  easy  to  see  the  bearing  of  such  religious  awakenings  upon 
the  mode  of  treating  the  practice  of  slaveholding,  unless  it 
were  believed  to  be  righteous.  A more  perfect  antagonism 
to.  the  ethics  and  operations  of  the  Colonization  Society  could 
not  well  be  imagined.  A collision  was  inevitable,  whenever 
the  subject  should  be  introduced,  and  the  Society  itself  could 
scarcely  avoid  introducing  it. 

Simultaneously  with  all  this,  and  more  or  less  connected 
with  it,  there  came  over  the  religious  community  an  increas- 
ing spirit  of  inquiry  in  respect  to  Christian  ethics,  and  the 
bearing  of  the  religious  principle  upon  the  social  relations  and 
political  duties  of  man.  Peace  Societies  had  been  formed. 
Temperance  Societies  were  in  progress.  The  Institution  of 
Free  Masonry  had  been  arraigned.  The  influence  of  theatres, 
of  lotteries,  and  the  morality  of  lottery  grants  by  legislatures, 
were  brought  under  rigorous  review.  The  treatment  of  the 
aborigines  of  our  country,  especially' of  the  Cherokees,  by 
Georgia  and  the  Federal  Government,  and  the  imprisonment 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


389 


of  the  missionaries  among  the  Cherokees,  became  subjects  of 
earnest  attention.  Christians  began  to  be  reminded  that  they 
were  citizens,  and  that  Christianity  had  its  claims  upon  them 
in  their  civil  relations.  The  Sabbath  Mail  question — whether 
wisely  .or  unwisely  managed — became  an  exciting  topic  of 
animadversion  from  the  pulpit  and  religious  press.  The  ap- 
plication of  the  principle  may  have  been  a mistaken  one,  or  it 
may  have  been  unhappily  argued  and  urged  ; but  the  princi- 
ple was,  in  some  fashion,  brought  into  view,  that  though  our 
institutions  secure  religious  freedom,  yet  religion  and  politics 
are  in  some  way  connected,  after  all,  and  civil  Governments 
have  no  right  to  disobey  God.  In  short,  it  was  a period  of 
unwonted  if  not  unprecedented  moral  and  political  inquiry. 
Was  it  possible  that  the  slave  question  should  escape  the 
scrutiny  of  such  an  age  ? Assuredly  it  did  not,  and  for  the 
obvious  reason  that  there  was  in  progress  a new  and  strong 
development  of  the  human  mind  in  the  direction  of  such  in- 
vestigations. How  short-sighted  are  those  who  think  that  the 
agitation  originated  only  with  a few  “ fanatics,”  and  that  all 
would  be  quiet  if  they  could  be  silenced  or  crushed ! 

Along  with  the  new  spirit  of  moral  enterprise  and  inquiry, 
there  came  likewise  the  new  and  appropriate  methods  of  their 
manifestation  and  culture  among  the  masses  of  the  people. 
Newspapers  were  no  longer  confined  to  party  politics  and 
commerce,  nor  the  reading  of  them  to  the  select  few.  Reli- 
gious newspapers  were  among  the  novelties  of  the  times. 
These  were  followed  by  papers  designed  to  promote  the  re- 
forms and  discuss  the  moral  questions  of  the  day.  Voluntary 
lecturers  and  agents  of  societies  were  abroad.  Promiscuous 
conventions  as  well  as  protracted  religious  meetings  were 
held,  and  laymen  found  they  had  tongues.  To  write  for  the 
public  was  no  longer  the  monopoly  of  professional  authors 
and  quarterly  and  monthly  reviewers.  Whoever  pleased 
might  become  an  editor  of  a newspaper,  and  whoever  chose 
to  subscribe  for  it,  at  a trifling  expense,  was  introduced  into 
the  “ republic  of  letters.”  Not  only  did  the  great  masses 
become  readers  of  public  journals,  but  to  a great  and  grow- 


390 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


ing  extent,  contributors,  likewise.  The  custom  of  writing 
anonymously,  encouraged  the  timid : the  most  dependent- 
could  stand  here  on  a level  with  the  most  powerful,  and 
sometimes  smile  to  see  their  productions  arrest  the  public 
attention.  Farmers  and  mechanics,  journeymen  and  appren- 
tices, merchants  and  clerks — females  as  well  as  males — par- 
ticipated in  the  privilege.  From  the  counting-house,  from 
the  anvil,  from  the  loom,  from  the  farmyard,  from  the  parlor, 
perhaps  from  the  kitchen,  there  came  paragraphs  for  the  pe- 
rusal (perhaps  for  the  reproval  and  instruction)  of  Senators 
and  Doctors  of  the  Law.  History,  that  often  busies  itself 
with  petty  details  pertaining  to  those  who  have  been  falsely 
called  great,  need  not  count  it  undignified  to  notice  revolu- 
tions in  human  condition  like  these — revolutions  more  sub- 
lime than  those  that  transfer  from  one  dynasty  to  another, 
princely  crowns.  No  one  can  comprehend,  in  their  causes 
and  distinctive  characteristics,  the  existing  agitations  in  Ame- 
rica, who  does  not  take  into  account  the  new  power  and  the 
changed  direction  of  the  public  press,  constituting  a new  era 
in  human  history. 

Was  it  strange,  at  such  a period,  when  laborers  of  almost 
all  classes  were  giving  free  utterance  to  their  thoughts,  that 
the  morality  of  unpaid  and  forced  labor  began  to  be  ques- 
tioned— that  the  chivalry  of  whipping  women,  and  the  civili- 
zation of  selling  babes  at  auction  by  the  pound — began  to  be 
scrutinized  ? The  rail-car,  in  1838,  the  electric  telegraph  ten 
years  afterwards,  were  scarcely  greater  innovations  or  greater 
curiosities  than  were  voluntary  lecturers,  free  public  conven- 
tions, and  moral  and  religious  weekly  journals,  with  their  free 
correspondence,  from  1825  to  1830.  Was  nothing,  then,  to 
have  been  expected — is  nothing  now  to  be  attributed  to  this 
new  moral  and  educating  power  ? 

William  Lloyd  Garrison  was  a printer’s  apprentice — 
then  a journeyman  printer,  at  Newburyport,  Massachusetts. 
He  wrote  paragraphs,  perhaps  stanzas,  for  the  newspaper,  on 
the  printing  of  which  he  was  employed.  His  pieces  were 
copied.  He  became  known.  He  was  invited,  in  1827  or  ’28, 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


391 


to  edit,  for  a few  months  (perhaps  to  assist  also  in  printing), 
a weekly  paper  in  Boston,  the  only  one  then  devoted  exclu- 
sively to  the  Temperance  cause,  the  first  of  the  kind  ever 
attempted,  and  then  in  its  second  or  third  year.*  He  after- 
wards edited,  by  invitation,  for  a short  period,  the  “ Journal 
of  the  Times”  in  Vermont,  and  took  strong  ground  against 
slavery. 

In  the  autumn  of  1829  he  became  associated  with  Benjamin 
Lundy,  in  the  publishing  and  editing  the  “ Genius  of  Univer- 
sal Emancipation at  Baltimore.  Not  long  afterwards,  the 
ship  Francis,  belonging  to  Francis  Todd,  of  Newburyport, 
Mass.,  being  at  Baltimore  for  freight,  was  employed  in  taking 
from  thence  a cargo  of  slaves  for  New  Orleans.  Mr.  Garrison 
noticed  the  fact  in  his  paper,  and  spoke  of  it  in  terms  of  such 
severity  that  Mr.  Todd  directed  a suit  to  be  brought  against 
him  for  a libel.  He  was  tried  by  a Maryland  Court,  in  Feb., 
1830,  convicted,  and  thrown  into  jail  for  non-payment  of  the 
fine  (one  hundred  dollars)  and  costs.  This  circumstance 
roused  an  excitement  at  the  North  that  has  never  since 
slept. f From  that  time  the  anti-slavery  cause  took  its  place 
among  the  moral  enterprises  of  the  age ; small  indeed  in  the 
beginning,  and  for  sometime  after,  but  constantly  widening 
and  deepening  its  channels. 


* The  National  Philanthropist , commenced  in  1S26,  by  the  late  Rev.  William 
Collier  (a  Baptist),  by  whom  Mr.  Garrison  was  employed.  The  Investigator , by 
William  Goodell,  commenced  in  1827,  and  published  at  Providence,  R.  1. 5 was  de- 
voted to  moral  and  political  discussion,  and  reformation  in  general,  including  tem- 
perance and  anti-slavery.  In  Jan.,  1829,  it  was  merged  by  him  in  the  National 
Philanthropist , at  Boston,  Mr.  Collier  retiring.  In  July,  1830,  it  was  removed  to 
New  York,  and  published  as  “ The  Genius  of  Temperance ,”  by  W.  Goodell  and  P. 
Crandall — afterwards  by  W.  Goodell,  till  the  close  of  1833,  when  it  was  discontinued, 
and  W.  Goodell  took  charge  of  the  Emancipator , which  had  been  issued  by  him 
from  the  same  office,  though  in  the  name  and  by  the  aid  of  Rev.  C.  W.  Denison, 
from  the  spring  preceding.  In  conducting  both  these  papers  he  received  assistance, 
for  a season,  from  the  late  Stephen  P.  Hines,  one  of  the  earliest  advocates  of  the 
anti-slavery  cause. 

t By  the  popular  orators  and  paid  agents  of  the  Colonization  Society,  Mr.  Garrison 
was  afterwards  stigmatized  in  public  meetings  of  that  Society,  in  the  city  of  New 
York  and  elsewhere,  as  “a  convicted  felon,"  on  account  of  this  trial  and  imprison- 
ment ! 


392 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


After  lying  in  jail  about  fifty  days,  Mr.  Garrison  was  I 
released  by  the  payment  af  his  fine  and  costs,  amounting  to' 
upwards  of  one  hundred  and  fifty  dollars,  contributed  chiefly 
by  Mr.  Arthur  Tappan,  merchant,  of  New  York,  well  known 
as  the  munificent  patron  of  Foreign  Missions  and  other  kin- 
dred efforts.  His  name  thenceforward,  with  that  of  his  bro- 
ther, Lewis  Tappan,  was  identified  with  the  anti-slavery  cause. 
Mr.  Garrison,  dissolving  partnership  with  Mr.  Lundy,  issued 
the  prospectus  of  his  “ Liberator,"  to  be  published  at  Wash- 
ington City,  but  his  arrangements  were  afterwards  changed. 
Mr.  Lundy  removed  with  his  paper  to  Washington,  and  Mr. 
Garrison  commenced  his  “ Liberator ” in  Boston,  in  Jan.,  1831% 

Mr.  Tappan,  Rev.  Simeon  S.  Jocelyn,  and  others,  projected 
the  establishment  of  a seminary  of  learning  at  New  Haven, 
for  the  benefit  of  colored  students,  the  same  year,  but  a strong 
opposition  manifested  itself,  a public  meeting  at  New  Haven 
denounced  the  project,  and  it  was  necessarily  abandoned. 

The  insurrection  of  Nat.  Turner  at  Southampton,  in  Vir- 
ginia, the  same  year,  alarmed  the  South,  and  quickened  the 
discussion  of  the  slave  question  throughout  the  country.  The 
insurgents,  about  sixty  in  number,  were  put  down  by  United 
States’  forces.  The  Legislature  of  Virginia  discussed  the 
measure  of  gradual  emancipation,  but  indefinitely  postponed 
the  whole  subject. 

On  January  30,  1832,  the  New  England  Anti-Slavery 
Society  was  organized  in  Boston,  and  went  into  operation, 
but  with  limited  means. 

The  “ New  York  Evangelist ,”  conducted  for  a time  by  Rev. 
Samuel  Griswold,  and  afterwards  by  Rev.  Joshua  Leavitt, 
entered  into  the  discussion,  and  espoused  the  enterprise.  The 
“ Genius  of  Temperance,''''  as  before  mentioned,  was  already 
committed  to  the  cause.  The  circulation  of  both  these  papers 
was,  at  that  time,  extensive,  through  all  the  non-slaveholding 
and  many  of  the  slaveholding  States. 

By  pecuniary  aid  from  the  Messrs.  Tappan,  the  “ Emanci- 
pator" was  commenced,  in  the  spring  of  1833,  as  before  stated, 
by  the  publishers  of  the  “ Genius  of  Temperance .” 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


393 


By  co-operation  between  the  Messrs.  Tappan  and  a few 
others,  very  large  issues  of  anti-slavery  tracts  were  circulated 
monthly,  during  the  greater  part  of  this  year,  and  sent  by 
aiail  to  clergymen  of  all  denominations,  and  other  prominent 
men  throughout  the  country.  A great  amount  of  important 
nformation  was  thus  diffused. 

This  year  was  also  distinguished  by  the  visit  of  Mr.  Garri- 
son to  England,  where  he  obtained  important  information, 
and  was  cheered  with  the  hearty  sympathy  of  Wilberforce, 
Jlarkson,  Buxton,  Macauley,  and  other  friends  of  the  cause. 
At  home,  the  excitement  was  increased  by  the  disgraceful  and 
3ver  memorable  prosecution  and  imprisonment  of  Miss  Pru- 
dence Crandall,  for  teaching  a colored  school  at  Canterbury, 
donn.,  under  a law  enacted  for  the  special  purpose,  through 
the  influence  of  leading  friends  of  the  Colonization  Society. 

By  this  time  the  doctrine  of  immediate  and  unconditional 
smancipation  of  the  soil,  as  held  by  “ modern  abolitionists,” 
was  pretty  thoroughly  proclaimed  throughout  the  country. 
To  the  mass  of  the  people  it  was  a new  and  strange  doc- 
trine, though  taught  by  Hopkins  and  Edwards  the  previous 
sentury.  It  roused  the  people  from  their  slumbers.  The 
majority  were  alarmed ; some  hesitated,  many  inquired,  and 
not  a few,  including  individuals  of  high  moral  worth  and 
established  reputation,  were  attracted  to  the  new  and  defi- 
nite standard,  and  rallied  round  it.  Among  these  were 
many  whose  earnest  opposition  to  slavery  was  no  new  and 
hasty  impulse.  Evan  Lewis,  of  Pennsylvania,  of  the  Society 
of  Friends,  for  many  years  an  active  friend  of  the  enslaved, 
was  of  the  number  of  these.  Hon.  William  Jay,  the  worthy 
son  of  Gov.  John  Jay  of  New  York,  was  another.  Moses 
Brown,  a very  aged  member  of  the  Society  of  Friends,  of 
Providence,  R.  I.,  more  extensively  known  by  his  exalted 
virtues  and  rare  wisdom  than  by  his  great  wealth,  was  an- 
other.* Nathaniel  Emmons,  D.D.,  of  Massachusetts,  the  dis- 


* Moses  Brown  died  in  1836,  aged  98.  A few  days  before  bis  death  he  penned  an 
important  communication  on  the  subject  of  slavery,  for  publication  in  an  anti-slavery 


394 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


tinguisbed  theologian,  of  the  school  of  Edwards  and  Hopkins 
and  formerly  their  associate,  being  then  eighty-eight  years  o.' 
age,  but  retaining  his  full  mental  vigor,  was  another.* *  Rev 
Thomas  Andros,  of  Berkeley,  Mass.,  upwards  of  seventy 
years  of  age,  yet  active,  a “ self-made  man” — of  strong  power 
and  extensive  literary  acquirements,  a theological  writer 
though  a mariner  in  his  younger  years,  and  once  a prisone 
in  the  Revolutionary  war  on  board  the  far-famed  Jersey 
prison-ship,  (from  which  he  escaped  by  almost  superhumai 
exertions  and  miraculous  providences,  while  prostrate  witl 
yellow  fever,)  was  another.  Chief  Justice  Hutchinson,  of 
Vermont,  was  another.  To  this  list  might  be  added  other.1 
less  extensively  known,  but  of  a similar  character,  mer 
minutely  acquainted  with  the  history  of  slavery  and  emanci 
pation,  veterans,  some  of  them,  for  more  than  half  a century 
in  the  cause  of  human  freedom,  and  well  qualified  to  judge 
what  expedients  were  to  be  regarded  as  inadequate,  and  wlial 
the  exigencies  of  the  times  required.  The  wisdom  and  expe- 
rience of  such  men  should  have  sheltered  the  anti-slavery 
agitation  from  the  flippant  charge  of  a “ hair-brained  fanati- 
cism”— the  charges  emanating,  in  most  instances,  from  younger 
and  less  considerate  men,  many  of  whom  had  never  devoted 
a month’s  candid  attention  to  the  most  profound  and  moment- 
ous problem  of  the  age.  If  younger  men,  under  the  manifest 
Providence  of  God,  originated  the  movement,  they  were  not 
destitute  of  the  sympathy,  council,  and  co-operation  of  the 


paper.  He  was  consequently  94  years  of  age  in  1832,  when  the  New  England  Anti- 
Slavery  Society  was  formed. 

* Dr.  Emmons  had  incautiously  taken  for  granted  that  the  Colonization  Society 
was  doing  some  good,  though  he  never  seems  to  have  relied  upon  it  to  remove  slavery. 
When  Mr.  Garrison  came  out  against  the  Society,  in  1832,  Dr.  Emmons,  who  was 
“ never  too  old  to  learn,”  sat  down  to  an  examination  of  the  Society’s  periodical 
magazine,  the  “ African  Repository ,”  which  was  lying  on  a shelf  in  his  own  study. 
A few  hours’  reading  opened  his1  eyes.  “ There  is  no  disinterested  benevolence 
about  it,”  said  he,  as  he  laid  up  the  numbers.  “ It  is  all  a scheme  of  selfishness, 
from  beginning  to  end.  It  is  all  wrong.”  At  the  Anniversary  of  the  American 
Anti-Slavery  Society  in  New  York  City,  in  May,  1835,  he  was  present,  and  presided 
at  the  opening  of  the  meeting  for  business.  lie  died  Sept.  23,  1840,  in  the  9Gth  year 
of  his  age. 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


395 


>atriarchs  of  liberty  in  both  hemispheres.  And  practical 
msiness  men,  from  forty  to  sixty  years  of  age,  were  not  want- 
ng  among  them.  New  recruits,  of  all  ages  and  professions, 
ame  forward.  President  Storrs,  and  Professors  B.  Green* 
,nd  E.  Wright,  Jr.,  of  the  Western  Reserve  College,  Hudson, 
)hio,  were  hailed  among  the  accessions  of  this  period.  [James 
x.  Birney,  James  A.  Thome,  Rev.  Dr.  Nelson,  Rev.  Dr.  Bris- 
bane and  others,  from  the  slave  States,  espoused  the  cause 
ifterwards.] 

The  time  had  now  come  for  a more  general  organization  of 
he  friends  of  the  cause.  A New  York  City  Anti-Slavery 
Society  was  organized,  October  2,  1833,  but  not  without  de- 
nonstrations  of  tumult  and  violence.  The  meeting  had  been 
idvertised  to  be  held  at  Clinton  Hall.  A counter  notice, 
,igned  by  “ Many  Southrons,”  invited  a meeting  at  the  same 
ime  and  place.  The  abolitionists,  therefore,  as  many  as  on 
he  sudden  emergency  could  be  notified,  assembled  at  Chatham 
Street  Chapel.  Their  opposers,  finding  Clinton  Hall  closed, 
idjourned  to  Tammany  Hall,  and  made  speeches  and  adopted 
•esolutions  against  them.  Before  separating,  they  learned 
vhere  the  abolitionists  were  assembled,  and  adjourned,  by  ac- 
clamation, and  shouts  of  “ Let  us  route  them,”  to  Chatham 
Street  Chapel,  which  they  entered  tumultuously  and  riotously, 
ust  as  the  meeting  there  had  adjourned,  but  before  the  per- 
sons in  attendance  had  left  the  house.  Loud  threats  were 
attered — “ Ten  thousand  dollars  for  Arthur  Tappan  !”  Several 
ibolitionists  were  called  for  by  name,  but  they  all  escaped 
personal  violence.  The  Tammany  meeting  was  organized  by 
strominent  citizens,  addressed  by  popular  public  speakers,  and 
.heir  proceedings  published  in  the  city  papers,  along  with 
gratulations  for-jhe  “security  of  the  Union  !” 

By  the  same  class  of  citizens,  a Colonization  meeting  was 
promptly  called,  which  was  held  at  the  Masonic  Hall,  precisely 
Dne  week  after  the  Tammany  Hall  and  Chatham  Street  Chapel 
meetings.  The  Mayor  of  the  city  presided.  The  orators 


* Afterwards  President  Green,  of  Oneida  Institute,  N.  Y. 


396 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


dwelt  on  the  reckless  agitations  of  the  abolitionists.  Not 
word  of  disapprobation  of  the  late  outrage  against  them  w:- 
uttered.  Theodore  Frelinghuysen,  United  States  Senator  fro 
New  Jersey,  charged  them  with  “ seeking  to  dissolve  tl 
Union.”  Chancellor  Walworth  was  in  attendance,  from  A 
bany,  to  declare  their  efforts  “ unconstitutional,”  and  to  d 
nounce  them  as  “reckless  incendiaries.”  David  B.  Ogdei 
Esq.,  declared  “ the  doctrine  of  immediate  emancipation  to  1 
a direct  and  palpable  nullification  of  the  Constitution.”  M 
Frelinghuysen  further  declared  that  “nine-tenths  of  the  hoi 
rors  of  slavery  are  imaginary,”  and  the  “crusade  of  abolition, 
he  regarded  as  “ the  poetry  of  philanthropy.” 

In  pursuance  of  a previous  public  notice,  a National  Ant 
Slavery  Convention  was  held  in  the  City  of  Philadelphi; 
December  4th,  5th,  and  6th,  1833,  consisting  of  upwards  o 
sixty  members,  from  ten  States,  viz. : Maine,  New  Hampshin 
Vermont,  Massachusetts,  .Rhode  Island,  Connecticut,  Ne\ 
York,  New  Jersey,  Pennsylvania,  and  Ohio.  Beriah  Greer 
President  of  Oneida  Institute,  was  chosen  President  of  th 
Convention,  and  Lewis  Tappan  and  John  G.  Whittier  Secre 
taries.  The  members  united  in  signing  a declaration  of  thei 
sentiments,  objects,  and  measures,  prepared  in  committee 
from  a draft  by  Mr.  Garrison.  This  Convention  organize! 
the  American  Anti-Slavery  Society,  of  which  Arthur  Tappai 
was  chosen  President,  Elizur  Wright,  Jun.,  Secretary  of  Do 
mestic  Correspondence,  and  William  Lloyd  Garrison  Secretary 
of  Foreign  Correspondence,  A.  L.  Cox,  Recording  Secretary 
William  Green,  Jr.,  Treasurer.  The  Executive  Committes 
was  located  in  New  York  City,  the  seat  of  the  Society’s  oper 
ations;  which  were  now  prosecuted  with  vigor.  The  “ Eman 
cipator,”  under  editorial  charge  of  William  Goodell,*  one  of 
the  Executive  Committee,  became  the  organ  of  the  Society 
Tracts,  pamphlets,  and  books  were  published  and  circulated. 


* This  arrangement  continued,  till  July,  1835,  when  Mr.  Goodell  left  the  city  foi, 
another  field  of  labor  in  the  same  cause,  and  the  Emancipator  was  conducted,  sue-! 
cessively,  by  E.  Wright,  Jr.,  Amos  A.  Phelps,  and  Joshua  Leavitt,  and  was  finally 
removed  to  Boston. 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


397 


, large  number  of  lecturing  agents  were  employed,  conven- 
ions  were  held,  and  State,  County,  and  local  Anti-Slavery 
Societies  were  organized  throughout  the  free  States,  auxiliary 
o the  American,  and  contributing  to  its  funds.  The  New 
Cngland  Anti-Slavery  Society  became  the  Massachusetts  State 
Society.  Mr.  Garrison  continued  to  issue  the  Liberator  at 
Boston,  some  time  as  organ  of  the  State  Society,  and  after- 
yards again  in  his  own  name. 

These  particulars  may  serve  to  give  some  idea  of  the  origin 
>f  the  Anti-Slavery  movement,  sufficient  to  show  that  it  was 
>f  no  mushroom  growth,  or  capricious  origin,  but  came  up, 
laturally,  not  to  say  necessarily,  under  the  moral  government 
>f  God,  and  in  the  onward  and  upward  march  of  human  im- 
provement and  progress.  In  the  light  of  the  preceding  his- 
tory, this  remark  can  scarcely  fail  to  be  appreciated,  as  well 
is  understood.  To  what  destiny,  without  such  a healthful, 
'.imely,  and  necessary  agitation,  could  the  country  have  been 
ending?  "What  would  have  become  of  the  interests  af.hu- 
nanity,  of  morality,  of  religion,  of  civilization,  and  of  liberty, 
iffected  as  these  are  by  the  position  and  the  activities  of  the 
dhurch  and  of  the  State?  Was  it  not  high  time  that  some- 
Qiing  were  attempted  to  be  done  ? What  should  that  some- 
ling  be,  if  not  the  measures  that  were  then  put  in  operation  ? 
[f  there  were  wiser  men,  who  could  have  propounded  better 
measures,  why  did  they  not  come  forward  ? If  it  be  said 
that  the  Colonization  Society  was,  (as  was  claimed  by  its 
friends,)  that  better  measure,  let  the  unprejudiced  reader* 
ludge. 

We  cannot  further  pursue,  in  minute  detail,  the  history  of 
the  anti-slavery  agitation.  A well-digested  and  condensed 
account  of  it  would  require  a large  volume.  We  will  hastily 
group  together  a few  classes  of  facts  that  may  afford  light  upon 
the  present  position  and  aspect  of  the  slave  question  in  Amer- 
ica, and  the  duties  and  prospects  before  us. 


398 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


PRINCIPLES  OF  ABOLITIONISTS. 

These  may  be  briefly  and  comprehensively  stated  as  fo 
lows : 

“All  men  are  created  equal,  and  are  endowed  by  thei 
Creator  with  certain  inalienable  rights,  among  which  are  lift 
liberty,  and  the  pursuit  of  happiness.” 

Slavery,  or  more  properly,  the  practice  of  slaveholding,  i 
a crime  against  human  nature,  and  a sin  against  God. 

Like  all  other  sins,  it  should  be  immediately  and  uncond 
tionally  repented  of,  and  abandoned.  It  is  always  safe  t 
leave  off  doing  wrong,  and  never  safe  to  continue  in  wrong 
doing. 

It  is  the  duty  of  all  men  to  bear  testimony  against  wrong 
doing,  and  consequently,  to  bear  testimony  against  slavehold 
ing. 

Imjnediate  and  unconditional  emancipation  is  pre-eminent! 
prudent,  safe,  and  beneficial,  to  all  the  parties  concerned.* 

No  compensation  is  due  to  the  slaveholder  for  emancipatin; 
his  slaves ; and  emancipation  creates  no  necessity  for  sucl 
compensation,  because  it  is,  of  itself  a pecuniary  benefit,  no 
only  to  the  slave,  but  to  the  master. 

There  should  be  no  compromise  of  moral  principle,  in  legis 
lation,  jurisprudence,  or  the  executive  action  of  the  Govern 
ment,  any  more  than  in  the  activities  and  responsibilities  of 
’private  life. 

No  wicked  enactments  can  be  morally  binding.  “ Then 
are,  at  the  present  time,  the  highest  obligations  resting  on  the 
people  of  the  free  states  to  remove  slavery,  by  moral  and  po- 
litical action,  as  prescribed  in  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States.” — Anti-Slavery  Declaration  of  1833. 

The  measures  of  abolitionists  were  such  as  grew  out 


* The  precise  date  of  the  adoption  of  this  sentiment  'by  “ modern  abolitionists” 
generally  in  America,  we  do  not  find.  Mr.  Garrison  had  not  adopted  it  at  the  time 
of  his  4th  of  July  discourse  at  Boston,  in  1829,  hut  it  was  embodied  in  the  Declara- 
tion of  the  Convention  at  Philadelphia,  in  1833. 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM.  399 

f their  principles,  and  consisted  in  their  promulgation  and 
ractice. 

Among  the  publications  circulated  by  them,  at  an  early 
ay,  were  the  Dialogue  of  Dr.  Hopkins,  and  the  Sermon  of 
)r.  Jonathan  Edwards,  before  mentioned,  together  with  Wes- 
3y’s  Thoughts  on  Slavery.  The  first  two,  as  we  have  seen, 
ad  been  circulated  long  before,  by  the  Anti-Slavery  Societies, 
atronized  by  Stiles,  Jay,  and  Franklin.  The  latter  had  been 
irculated  by  Methodist  preachers,  by  direction  of  the  Con- 
^rendes,  as  late  as  the  year  1804.  But  in  1834,  the  circula- 
on  of  these  writings  was  proscribed  as  treasonable,  and 
ondemned  as  insurrectionary.  Ho  writings  of  “modern 
bolitionists”  were  more  severe  against  slaveholders  than 
rese,  as  an  examination  of  them  will  show. 


400 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


CHAPTER  XXXIII. 

OPPOSITION  TO  ABOLITIONISTS. — ITS  CAUSES — ITS  ELEMENTS- 
ITS  NATURE  AND  METHODS. 

Why  abolitionists  were  opposed — False  reasons  assigned  for  it — Elements  of  t 
opposition — Conservatism  in  the  Church — Commercial  cupidity — Political  rival 
— Scheme  of  Colonization — Servility  of  Literary  Institutions — Nature  and  mod 
of  opposition — The  religious  and  political  press — Mob  violence — Early  and  reraar 
able  instances — New  York,  Philadelphia,  Worcester  (Mass.),  Canaan  (N.  II 
Boston,  Utica  (N.  Y.),  New  Haven  (Conn.),  Alton  (111.) — Murder  of  Lovejoy 
Burning  of  Pennsylvania  Hall — Three  Riots  in  Cincinnati — Three  in  Philadc 
pliia — Similar  scenes  elsewhere — Fomented  by  “ the  higher  classes  of  Society” 
“Gentlemen  of  property  and  standing”— the  Conservative  Clergy,  and  leadii 
influences  in  the  Colonization  Society. 

Why  were  abolitionists  opposed?  And  for  wbat  ? It  wi 
for  the  agitation  of  the  slave  question.  It  was  for  the  a 
tempted  propagation  and  practice  of  their  principles,  and  f 
nothing  else*  that  abolitionists  were  violently  assailed  and  vi 
lifted. 

It  was  not  because  they  were  “fanatics”  or  “incendiaries 
nor  because  they  insisted  upon  or  recommended  “amalgam, 
tion,”  or  sought  to  incite  the  slaves  to  insurrection  and  blow 
shed.  These  charges  were  only  the  unfounded  aspersions  < 
their  enemies. 

It  was  not  because  they  had  any  of  them,  at  that  time,  a 
sailed  either  the  Churches,  the  Sabbath,  the  Bible,  the. Mini: 
try,  the  Constitution,  the  Union,  or  the  political  parties.  The 


* It  is  admitted  that  many  worthy  men,  including  sincere  friends  of  the  enslave 
dissented  from  the  distinctive  views  of  abolitionists,  and  argued  against  them.  D 
Channing,  to  some  extent,  did  this,  as  did  many  others.  But  this  was  no  part 
the  kind  of  opposition  of  which  we  are  speaking. 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


401 


iad  simply  assailed  slavery , invoking  all  the  powers  of  the 
Ihurch  and  of  the  State,  with  their  institutions — all  religious 
ects  and  all  political  parties  in  the  country — to  join  with 
hem,  in  opposition  to  slavery.  They  were  mostly  themselves 
upporters  of  the  different  religious  sects  and  political  parties : 
nd  so  far  from  anticipating  any  separation  from  them,  or  con- 
roversy  with  them,  they  fondly  expected  to  secure  their  co- 
peration  and  assistance.  To  ministers  of  the  gospel,  espe- 
ially,  were  their  appeals  confidingly  and  respectfully  ad- 
ressed.* 

It  was  not  because,  in  the  first  instance,  they  opposed,  or 
hought  of  opposing,  the  Colonization  Society.  Mr.  Garrison 
imself  addressed,  on  invitation,  a meeting  of  the  Colonization 
ociety,  held  in  the  Park-street  Congregational  Church  in 
loston,  on  the  4th  of  July,  1829. f The  Colonization  Society 
'as  not  opposed  by  abolitionists  until  it  was  found  to  be  the 
pposer  of  abolition,  and  the  persecutor  of  the  free  people  of 
Dior. 

It  was  the  “ agitation  of  the  subject'1'1  that  was  opposed,  and 
ot  any  particular  measure  or  mode  of  treating  it. 

ELEMENTS  OF  THE  OPPOSITION. 

As  the  anti-slavery  agitation  was,  primarily,  the  natural 


* The  writer  accompanied  Mr.  Garrison,  in  1S29,  in  calling  upon  a number  of 
eminent  ministers  in  Boston,  to  secure  their  co-operation  in  the  cause.  Our 
pectations  of  important  assistance  from  them  were,  at  that  time,  very  sanguine. 

f This  elaborate  and  able  discourse  was  published  in  the  Rational  Philanthropist, 
ider  the  title  of  “ National  Dangers,”  among  which  the  speaker  enumerated 
infidelity” — “ the  tyranny  of  government  which  compels  its  servants  to  desecrate 
e holy  Sabbath” — the  “ desolations  of  liquid  fire” — the  abuse  of  the  elective  fran- 
ise — the  general  exclusion  of  religious  men  from  office— “ the  profligacy  of  the 
ess,”  which  attacks  every  holy  enterprise,  ( e . g.  the  missionary  cause,  &c.,  which 
,s  then  villified),  and  finally,  the  great  abomination  of  slavery.  On  this  latter- 
pie  the  speaker  dilated  at  length,  and  said — “ I call  on  the  ambassadors  of  Christ 
erywhere,  to  make  known  this  proclamation,  ‘Thus  saith  the  Lord  God  of  the 
. ricans,  Let  this  people  go,  that  they  may  serve  me.’  I ask  them  to  ‘proclaim 
lerty  to  the  captive,  and  the  opening  of  the  prison  to  them  that  are  bound.’  ” “Z 
< l on  the  churches  of  the  living  God  TO  LEAD  in  this  great  enterprise  !” 
iad  the  churches  and  ministry  responded,  as  they  should  have  done,  to  this 

• peal,  they  would  have  been  spared  the  trouble  of  opposing  “infidel  abolition- 
ii,”  and  the  pretext  of  being  repulsed  from  the  anti-slavery  enterprise  by  it. 

26 


402 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


working  of  a religious  sentiment  in  the  religious  community 
so  the  opposition  to  it  was,  primarily,  the  natural  working  oi 
a counter  sentiment  in  the  same  religious  community.  Then 
was  not  a religious  sect  that  did  not  experience  the  shock  oi 
the  two  antagonistic  principles  contending  against  each  othei 
in  the  same  ecclesiastical  communion. 

From  the  times  of  the  Edwardses,  there  had  been  a pro 
gressive  and  a conservative  party  in  the  Churches  ; the  formes 
aspiring  after  an  enlarged  liberty’-,  and  the  latter  seeking  tc 
repress  it ; the  former  insisting  upon  the  doctrine  of  imme 
diate  and  unconditional  repentance  (as  did  Hopkins) ; th< 
latter  pleading  for  indulgences,  postponement,  gradualism 
and  temporizing  expedients  ; the  former  responded  prompt^ 
to  the  call  for  the  immediate  and  unconditional  abolition  oi 
slavery ; the  latter  had  previously  intrenched  and  fortifiec 
itself  in  the  fortress  of  the  Colonization  Society,  and  was  de 
termined  to  permit  no  disturbance  of  its  supremacy  and  it: 
quietude. 

The  first  collision,  therefore,  was  manifested  in  the  boson 
of  the  principal  religious  sects  at  the  North,  including  espe 
cially  the  Congregationalists  of  New  England,  and  the  Pres 
byterians  of  the  Middle  States,  and  speedily  followed  in  tht 
Methodist,  Baptist,  and  other  communions.  The  religion 
presses  of  these,  particularly  of  the  Congregational  sect,  ii 
the  hands  of  the  conservative  party,  were  the  first  to  traduce 
to  misrepresent,  to  villify,  and  to  oppose  the  abolitionists 
representing  them  as  anarchists,  Jacobins,  villifiers  of  grea 
and  good  men  who  had  been  slaveholders,  (but  who  had  no 
been  directly  mentioned  by  abolitionists*)  incendiaries,  plot 


* The  Vermont  Chronicle , edited  by  Rev.  Joseph  Tracy,  early  in  1833,  representc 
that  the  Liberator  had  called  Washington  a man-stealer  and  a robber,  now  in  hell 
But  this  was  only  the  inference  of  Mr.  Tracy  from  a communication  in  the  Liberator, 
written  by  a Presbyterian  clergyman  of  New  York  (Rev.  Geo.  Bourne),  formerly  , 
resident  of  Virginia,  in  which  the  doctrine  of  Edwards — and  in  nearly  the  same  lai 
ffuaffc — was  affirmed  (without  any  allusion  to  Washington),  that  slaveholding  wt 
man-stealing,  and  an  act  of  robbery.  Yet  tho  charge  went  the  rounds  of  there! 
gious  papers,  was  copied  at  the  South,  then  by  the  New  York  City  editors,  <m; 
repeated  by  the  mob  who  sacked  the  house,  and  burnt  the  furniture  of  Lewis  Tapps! 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


403 


:rs  of  insurrection  ‘and  disunion,  and  enemies  of  the  public 
eace.  By  these  artful  and  injurious  appeals,  other  than  re- 
gious  elements  of  opposition  were  soon  roused. 

Commercial  cupidity  in  the  cities  trading  with  the  South, 
as  one  of  these  elements,  very  early  brought  into  action. 
Political  corruption  and  rivalry  came  next  in  order.  Abo- 
tionists  were  found  in  both  political  parties.  The  leading 
big  presses  first,*  and  the  democratic  afterwards,  exerted 
lemselves  to  throw  off  the  imputed  contamination,  and  as- 
ire  the  South  that  their  party  was  “sound  to  the  core,  on 
le  subject  of  slavery.” 

All  these  elements  of  opposition  found  their  centre,  their 
3>me  and  their  manifestation,  from  the  beginning,  in  the 
olonization  Society,  the  pet  of  the  conservatists  both  in  the 
Lurch  and  the  State.  The  meetings,  the  publications,  the 
rents,  and  the  advocates  of  this  Society,  were  almost  uni- 
:rmly  and  invariably  at  the  head  of  every  movement  and  of 
crery  disturbance  in  which  the  abolitionists  were  assailed. 
Literary  Institutions  at  the  North  desiring  or  enjoying 
buthern  patronage,  Northern  watering-places  the  resort  of 
buthern  visitors,  manufacturing  establishments  and  villages 
artizans  and  mechanics  vending  their  fabrics  and  wares  at 
ie  South — these  were  points  from  which  an  influence  was 
imost  certain  to  emanate,  opposed  to  all  earnest  agitation  of 
ie  subject  of  slavery. 

Over  all  these  elements  and  posts  of  opposition,  presided 
is  slave  interest  itself,  the  power  that  controlled  so  extensively 
Lth  the  Church  and  the  State;  the  mammoth  oligarchy  of 
te  nation,  assimilating  and  wielding  for  its  own  ends,  all  the 
hnor  interests  and  elements  of  aristocracy  in  the  land. 


i the  streets,  in  J uly,  1834.  Mr.  Tracy  -would  not  retract  the  charge.  He  was 
ijrwards  editor  of  the  Boston  Recorder , and  then  of  the  New  York  Observer , the 
t ) oldest  religious  papers  in  the  country,  and  advocates  of  the  Colonization 
S liety. 

This  priority  of  action  was  perhaps  owing  to  the  feet  that  a greater  number  of 
l 'mvnent  abolitionists  were  then  found  in  the  Whig  party  than  in  the  Democratic, 
iich  latter  was  in  the  ascendant,  and  therefore  identified  with  the  pro-slavery 
t on  of  the  Government,  and  averse  to  agitation. 


404 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


NATURE  AND  METHODS  OF  OPPOSITION. 


To  “ put  down  the  discussion  ” — to  “ silence  the  agitation,’ 
was  the  evident  object — and  to  a great  extent,  this  design  \va; 
openly  avowed.  The  “public  indignation,”  in  some  form 
wras  to  overawe  the  agitators,  and  overwhelm  them  with  de 
feat.*  In  perfect  consistency  with  this,  was  the  policy  of  clo 
sing  against  them  the  ordinary  avenues  of  access  to  the  publii 
mind — the  pulpit,  the  forum,  the  public  journals,  (political 
commercial,  literary,  and  religious,) — the  arena  of  public  de 
bate.  Or,  if  a discussion  was  attempted,  inflammatory  ap 
peals  and  injurious  aspersions  were  substituted  for  man! 
argument  and  dignified  debate.  A colonization  meeting  o 
anniversary  was  the  precursor  of  a mob  against  the  abolition 
ists  ; or,  on  the  other  hand,  the  riotous  dispersion  of  an  anti 
slavery  meeting  prepared  the  minds  of  a sympathizing  popu 
lace,  with  their  gifted  orators,  for  a public  demonstration  ii 
favor  of  the  colonization  enterprise,  connected  with  bitter  de 
nunciations  of  abolitionists,  and  apologies  or  defenses  oj 
slaveholding. 

EXTENSIVE  MANIFESTATIONS  OF  MOB  VIOLENCE. 

An  attempt  to  hold  an  anti-slavery  meeting  in  the  city  o 
Hew  York,  on  the  4th  of  July,  1884,  was  made  the  occasio: 
of  a frightful  and  protracted  riot.  The  meeting  was  broke 
up ; and  for  several  successive  days  and  evenings,  the  cit 
was  in  possession  of  the  rioters,  who  assaulted  private  dwe’ 
lings  and  places  of  public  worship,  attempting  and  threatenin 
personal  violence  upon  abolitionists.  Similar  scenes  wer 
enacted  in  Philadelphia  a few  weeks  afterwards.  Extensiv 
damages  were  done  to  the  private  dwellings  and  public  builc 
ing  of  the  unoffending  colored  people  who  had  been  cruell 


* It  is  important  that  the  reader  notices  distinctly  this  statement,  and  watches  tl 
evidences  of  its  truthfulness,  as  the  narrative  proceeds.  Great  efforts  have  bee 
made  to  produce  the  impression  that  only  some  peculiar  and  offensive  “ measure 
of  abolitionists  were  opposed.  The  “ measure”  most  obnoxious  was  the  agitatic 
and  discussion  of  the  subject. 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


405 


maligned,  and  wantonly  held  up  to  public  odium  at  a coloni 
ation  meeting  a short  time  previous.  During  these  riota, 
diich  were  of  several  days’  recurrence,  many  of  the  colored 
leople  were  wounded,  and  some  of  them  lost  their  lives. 

These  early  examples  of  lawlessness,  notoriously  counte- 
anced  as  they  were  by  men  of  wealth  and  influence,  excited 
•y  eloquent  orators,  and  palliated  afterwards  by  the  public 
ress,  furnished  precedents  for  similar  outrages  throughout 
he  non-slaveholding  states  for  a series  of  years. 

At  Worcester,  Mass.,  Aug.  10,  1835,  while  Kev.  Orange 
icott  was  lecturing,  a son  of  an  Ex-Governor  of  the  State, 
ssisted  by  an  Irishman,  tore  up  his  notes  and  offered  him 
ersonal  violence. 

On  the  same  day,  a mob  at  Canaan,  (N.  H.)  demolished  and 
.ragged  away  an  academy,  because  colored  youth  were  ad- 
mitted to  study  there. 

At  Boston,  Oct.  21st.,  1835,  a mob  of  5000  “gentlemen  of 
•roperty  and  standing,”  as  the  city  editors  called  them,  mobbed 
he  Boston  Female  Anti-Slaver}'-  Society,  dispersed  them  while 
he  President  was  at  prayer,  and  dragged  Mr.  Garrison  through 
he  streets  with  a rope  about  his  body.  He  was  roughly 
andled,  threatened  with  tar  and  feathers,  but  finally  con- 
.ucted  to  the  Mayor,  who  lodged  him  in  jail  till  the  next 
ay,  to  save  him  from  further  violence.  After  an  examina- 
ion,  he  was  released  from  prison,  but  at  the  earnest  entreaties 
f the  city  authorities,  left  Boston  for  a time. 

The  same  day,  at  Utica,  N.  Y.,  a committee  of  twenty-five 
■rominent  citizens,  appointed  at  a public  meeting,  and  headed 
y a member  of  Congress,  broke  up  a meeting  convened  to 
mrm  a New  York  State  Anti-Slavery  Society,  and  threw  down 
he  press  of  a democratic  journal  that  had  espoused  the  anti- 
lavery  cause.  By  invitation  of  Gerrit  Smith,  who,  on  that 
ccasion,  identified  himself  with  them,  the  abolitionists  re- 
aired to  his  residence  at  Peterboro’,  twenty-five  miles  dis- 
mt,  where  the  next  day  they  finished  the  transaction  of  their 
usiness,  after  a portion  of  them  had  been  pelted  with  stones, 


406 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


mud,  and  missiles,  at  Vernon,  on  their  way  from  Utica  t. 
Peterboro’. 

In  Dec.  1836,  an  anti-slavery  meeting  at  New  Haven,  Conn 
was  broken  up  by  some  southern  students  of  Yale  College. 

At  Alton,  Illinois,  Nov.  7,  1837,  the  press  of  the  Alto 
Observer  was  destroyed  by  a mob,  and  the  editor,  Rev.  Elija 
P.  Lovejoy,  shot  dead,  receiving  four  balls  in  his  breast.  Th 
murderers  were  not  brought  to  justice. 

Pennsylvania  Hall,  in  Philadelphia,  was  opened  May  R 
1838,  for  the  free  discussion  of  all  subjects  interesting  t 
American  citizens.  On  the  17th  of  the  same  month  it  wa 
burned  by  a mob,  because  abolitionists  had  been  allowed  t 
hold  a meeting  there. 

At  Cincinnati,  Ohio,  Sept.  5,  1841,  a ferocious  mob  d( 
stroyed,  for  the  third  time,  the  printing-press  of  the  Philar 
thropist,  a paper  devoted  to  anti-slavery.  The  first  of  thes 
outrages  was  in  1836.  James  G.  Birney,  a repentant  slave 
holder,  from  Kentucky,  was  then  editor  and  proprietor  of  th 
paper. 

At  Philadelphia,  on  the  1st  of  August,  1842,  occurred  tli 
worst  of  several  mobs  against  the  colored  people  of  that  city 
A church  and  hall,  built  by  their  hard  earnings,  were  burr 
down,  their  houses  demolished,  and  their  persons  beaten  an< 
mangled  in  the  most  ferocious  and  cowardly  manner.  Th 
city  authorities  afforded  no  efficient  protection  till  the  mis 
chief  was  done,  in  a riot  of  two  days.  The  only  provocatior 
on  their  part,  was  a peaceful  temperance  celebration  of  th 
anniversary  of  British  West  India  emancipation,  and  walkin 
in  public  procession  on  that  occasion. 

These  instances  present  but  a specimen  of  the  riots  enactei 
against  abolitionists  in  almost  all  parts  of  the  country.  No 
only  in  cities  and  large  towns,  but  in  rural  villages,  am 
country  parishes,  and  townships,  the  attempt  to  hold  a meel 
ing  for  the  discussion  of  slavery  was,  very  frequently,  th 
signal  for  a disturbance  and  breach  of  the  peace.* 


* It  would  be  easy  to  fill  a respectable  volume  with  accounts  of  these  mobs,  an 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


407 


One  uniform  feature  of  these  lawless  proceedings  has  been 
that  they  have  been  either  countenanced,  instigated,  or  pal- 
liated by  that  description  of  citizens  who  complacently  con- 
sider themselves  and  are  commonly  denominated  “ the  higher 
class  of  society ,” — the  men  of  wealth,  of  office,  of  literature, 
of  elegant  leisure,  including  politicians, — and  that  portion  of 
the  clergy  who  naturally  associate  with  the  class  just  de- 
scribed, or  are  dependent  upon  them.  The  aristocracy  of  a 
city  or  village,  and  its  mobocracy,  if  not  exactly  identical,  or 
even  if  exhibiting  the  strong  contrasts  of  splendor  and  squalor, 
were  found  to  be  the  inseparable  ingredients,  the  sine  qua  non 
of  a riot  against  the  claims  of  emancipation  and  the  exercise 
of  free  speech.  We  speak  of  the  general  fact,  not  forgetting 
the  noble  exceptions. 

Another  remark  in  place  here,  is  the  uniformity  and  effi- 
ciency with  which  the  influences  sustaining  the  scheme  of 
Colonization,  (with  the  rare  exceptions  just  now  conceded,) 
have  been  arrayed  against  the  free  discussion  of  the  slave 
question,  and  bent,  at  all  hazards,  upon  its  suppression.  We 
might  specify  the  riots  in  New  York,  in  Philadelphia,  at  Utica, 
and  at  Alton,  as  having  been  obviously  excited  beforehand,  or 
palliated  and  excused  afterwards,  by  the  editors  and  public 
speakers  devoted  to  the  Colonization  cause.  The  pledge  of 
the  Society,  beforehand,  to  visit  with  its  censures,  when  need- 
ful, the  existence  of  Abolition  Societies  in  America,  has  been 
amply  and  even  more  than  literally  redeemed. 


the  means  by  which  they  have  been  roused.  The  writer  has  often  been  solicited  to 
prepare  such  a volume,  and  had  intended  to  afford  more  space  in  the  present  work 
for  the  details. 


408 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


CHAPTER  XXXIV. 

ATTEMPTS  TO  SILENCE  THE  DISCUSSION  BY  AUTHORITY — STATE 
LEGISLATURES — FEDERAL  EXECUTIVE — U.  S.  MAILS — GAG 
RULES  IN  CONGRESS — RIGHT  OF  PETITION. 

Presentment  of  a Grand  Jury — Literary  and  Theological  Review — Pamphlet  of  lion. 
Mr.  Sullivan— Rewards  offered  by  Southern  Governors  for  the  abduction  of  North- 
ern Abolitionists — Violent  language  of  pro-slavery  clergy  and  ecclesiastical  bodies 
— Southern  demands  on  Northern  State  Legislatures — Responses  of  Northern 
Governors — Bill  reported  in  Legislature  of  Rhode  Island — Violation  of  U.  S.  Mails 
— Pillage  of  Post-office  at  Charleston — Postmaster  General — President’s  Message 
— Accusation  against  abolitionists — Recommends  a prohibition  of  the  circulation 
of  their  papers  by  mail — Answer  of  the  Anti-Slavery  Ex.  Com. — Legislature  of 
Massachusetts — Joint  Committee — Interview  with  Anti-Slavery  Committee — Their 
uefense  silenced — Reaction — Prohibitory  Legislation  defeated — Action  in  Congress 
— Calhoun's  Mail  Report — Recommendation  of  the  President  defeated — Act  to 
prevent  a violation  of  the  mails — Anti-Slavery  Petitions — Various  “gags”  from 
1836  to  1S45 — John  Quincy  Adams. 


. But  measures  of  mere  riotous,  irregular,  unauthorized  vio- 
lence against  abolitionists,  were  soon  found  inadequate  to  the 
objects  of  those  who  had  set  them  on  foot.  It  was  not  every 
day  that  a popular  tumult  could  be  roused.  By  a reaction 
which  might  have  been  foreseen,  the  better  part  of  community, 
touched  by  sympathy,  and  excited  to  reflection  and  inquiry, 
were  led  to  protest  against  these  disorderly  proceedings. 
Some  of  them  became  abolitionists  themselves,  and  others  who 
did  not,  became  justly  alarmed  at  the  progress  of  anarchy,  and 
the  absence  of  protecting  law.  There  was  danger  that  the 
tables  might  be  turned,  and  mobs  against  abolitionists  be  fol- 
lowed by  mobs  against  their  opposers.  It  became  important, 
therefore,  to  put  down  abolitionists  by  the  strong  arm  of  civil 
power. 

Intimations  in  this  direction  began  to  manifest  themselves 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


409 


t an  early  day,  and  in  close  connection  with  the  riotous  de- 
monstrations already  noticed.  About  a month  before  the 
reat  mob  at  Utica,  a Grand  Jury  of  that  county,  (Oneida) 
omprising  a portion  of  the  incipient  rioters,  or  persons  in 
ympathy  with  them,  made  a presentment  in  which  they  say 
iiat  those  who  form  abolition  societies  are  guilty  of  sedition , 
nd  of  right  ought  to  be  punished,  and  that  it  is  the  duty  of 
11  citizens  friendly  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States, 
o destroy  all  their  publications  wherever  found. 

The  “Literary  and  Theological  Keview,”  published  in  the 
ity  of  New  York,  conducted  by  Leonard  Woods,  Jr.,  a son 
if  Professor  Woods  of  Andover,  Mass.,  (himself  afterwards 
kofessor  of  a College  in  Maine)  elaborately  defended  the 
losition  that  the  “radicals”  (meaning  the  abolitionists)  were 
'justly  liable  to  the  highest  civil  penalties  and  ecclesiastical  cen- 
ures .”* 

Th*e  Review  was  patronized  by  prominent  clergymen  in 
Jew  York  and  New  England,  was  approvingly  quoted  by 
eading  religious  journals,  without  eliciting  a word  of  public 
lissent,  (except  from  the  proscribed  abolitionists)  either  by 
he  school  of  theologians  represented  by  and  in  special  sym- 
pathy with  the  “ Review,”  or — what  is  still  more  remarkable 
—by  the  Reviews  and  Journals  of  the  rival  theological  party, 
n the  habit  of  controverting  disputed  points,  against  them. 

Another  specimen  of  the  literature  of  those  times  may  be 
bund  in  a widely  circulated  pamphlet  from  the  press  of  a 
popular  publishing  house  in  Boston,  the  same  year,  from  the 
men  of  a titled  LL.D.,j'  the  previous  author  of  a “Political 
Class  Book”  for  schools,  that  had  gone  through  several 
editions.  The  drift  of  the  pamphlet,  of  1835,  will  appear 
bom  the  following : 

“It  is  to  be  hoped  and  expected  that  Massachusetts  will  enact  laws  de- 
ilaring  the  printing,  publishing,  and  circulating  papers  and  pamphlets  on 
slavery,  and  also  the  holding  of  meetings  to  discuss  slavery  and  abolition, 


* Literary  and  Theological  Review  for  Dec.,  1835. 
t Hon.  Wtt-t.tam-  Sullivan. 


410 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


to  be  public  indictable  offenses,  and  provide  for  the  punishment  thereof 
such  manner  as  will  more  effectually  prevent  such  offenses.”  | 

If  it  be  thought  wonderful  that  such  sentiments  cou. 
emanate  from  the  high  places  of  New  York  and  New  En; 
land,  is  it  not  still  more  so  that  no  earnest  remonstranc 
either  from  press,  pulpit,  or  forum,  was  raised  against  i 
excepting  only  from  the  threatened  victims  ? 

The  prevalence  and  the  publication  of  such  views  at  tl 
North  could  not  fail  to  encourage  and  embolden  the  enemif 
of  liberty  and  free  discussion  at  the  South.  Accustomed  f 
legislative  enactments  against  the  agitation  of  the  slave  que: 
tion  among  themselves,  it  was  natural  that  they  should  expeo 
something  of  the  kind  from  the  legislatures  of  the  non-slav< 
holding  States,  especially  when  there  appeared  to  be  so  muc 
evidence  that  leading  men  at  the  North  were  already  ripe  fc 
the  measure.  A disposition  to  silence  the  northern  abolitior 
ists  by  public  authority,  as  well  as  by  other  forms  of  violence 
had  been  manifest  at  the  South  from  the  beginning,  and  ther 
now  seemed  to  be  a prospect  of  securing  the  co-operation  o. 
the  legislatures  of  the  nominally  free  States. 

As  early  as  Dec.  26,  1831,  Gov.  Lumpkin,  of  Georgia,  gay. 
his  approval  to  an  act  of  the  Legislature  of  that  State,  offer 
ing  five  thousand  dollars  to  any  one  who  would  arrest  anc 
bring  to  trial,  under  the  laws  of  that  State,  the  editor  or  pub 
lisher  of  the  Boston  Liberator.  By  the  laws  of  Georgia  Ik 
would  have  been  sentenced  to  death.  Mr.  Garrison  was  £ 
citizen  of  Massachusetts,  owing  no  allegiance  to  Georgia,  bull 
here  was  an  attempt,  by  the  Government  of  Georgia,  to  secure 
his  felonious  abduction.  Yet  the  Government  of  Massachu- 
setts took  no  notice  of  the  insult,  nor  in  any  way  provided 
for  the  security  of  its  citizens. 

Other  public  bodies  and  popular  meetings  at  the  South  fol- 
lowed this  example,  and  offered  rewards  for  the  abduction  of 
Northern  abolitionists.  Twenty  thousand  dollars  were  offered 
at  New  Orleans  for  the  seizure  of  Arthur  Tappan,  and  ten 
thousand  dollars  at  some  other  place  for  arresting  Bev.  Amos 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


411 


A.  Phelps.  Another  advertisement  specified  the  names  of 
several  of  the  Executive  Committee  of  the  American  Anti- 
Slavery  Society  at  New  York,  offering  a reward  for  each  or 
either  of  them. 

Even  ministers  of  religion  shared  largely  in  the  feelings 
that  prompted  to  these  advertisements  and  did  much  to  coun- 
tenance and  inflame  them. 

Eev.  Robert  N.  Anderson,  of  Virginia,  writing  to  the  Ses- 
sions of  the  Presbyterian  Churches  of  Hanover  Presbytery, 
in  1835,  said : 

“At  the  approaching  stated  meeting  of  the  Presbytery,  I design  to  offer 
a preamble  and  string  of  resolutions  on  the  subject  of  the  treasonable  and 
abominably  -wicked  interference  of  the  Northern  and  Eastern  fanatics  with 
our  political  and  civil  rights,  our  property,  and  our  domestic  concerns.” — 
“ If  there  be  any  stray  goat  of  a minister  among  you,  tainted  with  the  blood- 
hound principles  of  abolitionism,  let  him  be  ferreted  out,  silenced,  excom- 
municated, AND  LEFT  TO  THE  PUBLIC  TO  DISPOSE  OF  IN  OTHER  RESPECTS. 

“ Yours  in  the  Lord,  Robert  N.  Anderson.” 

Rev.  Thomas  S.  Witherspoon,  of  Alabama,  writing  to  the 
editor  of  the  Emancipator , said  : 

“ Let  your  emissaries  dare  to  cross  the  Potomac,  and  I cannot  promise 
you  that  your  fate  will  be  less  than  Hainan’s.  Then  beware  how  you  goad 
an  insulted  but  magnanimou^people  to  deeds  of  desperation.” 

Rev.  William  S.  Plummer,  D.D.,  of  Richmond,  Va.,  in  July, 
1885,  wrote  to  the  Chairman  of  a Committee  of  Correspond- 
ence for  calling  a public  meeting  of  the  clergy  of  Richmond, 
on  the  subject  of  abolition,  in  which  he  said : 

“ Let  them  (the  abolitionists)  understand  that  they  will  be  caught  if 
they  come  among  us,  and  they  will  take  good  care  to  keep  out  of  our 
way.”  “ If  abolitionists  will  set  the  country  in  a blaze,  it  is  but  fair  that 
they  should  receive  the  first  warming  of  the  fire.” 

A few  days  after  the  famous  forcing  of  the  Post-office,  the 
violation  of  the  U.  S.  Mail,  and  the  destruction  of  anti-slavery 
publications,  at  Charleston,  S.  C.  (July  29,  1835),  a public 
meeting  was  held  for  completing  that  measure,  and  ferreting- 
out  and  lynching  abolitionists.  At  this  assembly,  the  Charles- 
ton Courier  informs  us, 


412 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


“ The  clergy  of  all  denominations  attended  in  a body,  lending  their  sane 
tion  to  the  proceedings,  and  adding  by  their  presence  to  the  impressive 
character  of  the  scene.” 

The  thanks  of  the  meeting  to  the  clergy  for  this  service, 
was  expressed  in  a resolution  for  that  purpose. 

Rev.  J.  C.  Postell  (Methodist),  of  South  Carolina,  some 
time  afterwards,  addressed  a letter  to  Rev.  La  Roy  Sunder- 
land (Methodist),  editor  of  Zion's  Watchman , New  York,  in 
which  he  said : 

“ If  you  wish  to  educate  the  slaves,  I will  tell  you  how  to  raise  the  money, 
without  editing  Zion's  Watchman.  You  and  old  Arthur  Tappan  come  out’ 
to  the  South  this  winter,  and  they  will  raise  one  hundred  thousand  dollars 
for  you.  New  Orleans  itself  will  be  pledged  for  it.  Desiring  no  further 
acquaintance  with  you,”  &c.  &c. ! 

It  was  in  the  same  year  (1835)  that  the  ministers  and  mes- 
sengers of  the  Goslein  Baptist  Association,  assembled  at  Free 
Union,  Virginia,  having  adopted  resolutions  affirming  the 
right  to  slave  property,  proceeded  to  denounce  the  abolition- 
ists as  incendiaries  and  assassins,  and  intimating  that  they 
dared  not  show  themselves  at  the  South. 

At  the  Anniversary  of  the  American  Colonization  Society 
at  Washington  City  (so  late  as  1839),  Hon.  Henry  A.  Wise, 
M.  C.,  of  Virginia,  a slaveholder  and  duellist,  said : 

“The  best  way  to  meet  abolitionists  was  with  Dupont’s  best  ( i . e. 
gunpowder)  and  wuth  cold  steel.”  The  N.  Y.  Sun  reported  that,  after 
Mr.  W.  had  made  his  speech,  Rev.  Dr.  Gardner  Spring,  of  New  York 

City,  SPOKE  WITH  SYMPATHY  OF  THE  SENTIMENTS  OF  THE  SoCTH,  AS 
EVINCED  IN  THE  SPEECH  OF  Mr.  WlSE  !” 

W e can  bear  testimony  that  the  language  here  attributed  to 
Mr.  Wise  is  but  little  more  violent  or  reprehensible  than  was 
frequently  used  at  Colonization  meetings  that  were  attended 
by  Hr.  Spring  (one  of  them  in  his  own  “ session  room”)  in 
the  city  of  New  York,  both  preceding  and  after  the  riots 
against  abolitionists,  in  1833  and  ’34.  To  “silence”  and  to 
“put  down  the  incendiaries,”  were  expressions  very  frequently 
employed. 

The  reader  will  now  be  prepared  to  understand  the  records 


SLAVERY  AJSTD  FREEDOM.  413 

hat  follow,  and  appreciate  the  situation  of  the  friends  of 
ibertv  at  that  period. 

Gov.  McDuffie,  of  South  Carolina,  in  his  message  to  the 
Legislature,  in  Dec.,  1835,  declared  slavery  to  be  “ the  corner- 
tone  of  our  republican  edifice.”  The  laboring  population  of 
;ny  community,  “ bleached  or  unbleached,”  he  pronounced 
o be  a “ dangerous  element  in  the  body  politic.”  He  pre- 
licted  that  the  body  of  the  laboring  people  of  the  North 
•vould  be  virtually  reduced  to  slavery  within  twenty-five 
.•ears.*  Of  the  measures  of  abolitionists,  he  said  : “ The  laws 
)f  every  community  should  punish  this  species  of  interfer- 
ence with  death  without  benefit  of  clergy, ”f  &c.  &c. 

In  pursuance  of  his  recommendation  (and,  as  if  desirous  of 
ulfilling  his  prophecy),  both  branches  of  the  Legislature  of 
hat  State  (Dec.  16)  adopted  the  following  : 

“ Resolved,  That  the  Legislature  of  South  Carolina,  having  every  confi- 
lence  in  the  justice  and  friendship  of  the  non-slaveholding  States,  announces 
\er  confident  expectation,  and  she  earnestly  requests,  that  the  Government 
jf  these  States  will  promptly  and  effectually  suppress  all  those  associa- 
;ions  within  their  respective  limits,  purporting  to  be  abolition  societies,” 
Sec.,  &c. 

December  19,  1835,  the  General  Assembly  of  North  Caro- 
lina adopted  the  following : 

“ Resolved,  That  our  sister  States  are  respectfully  requested  to  enact 
PENAL  LAWS,  prohibiting  the  printing,  within  their  respective  limits,  all 
such  publications  as  may  have  a tendency  to  make  our  slaves  discontented.” 

January  7,  1836,  the  Alabama  Legislature  adopted  the  fol- 
lowing : 

“ Resolved,  That  we  call  upon  our  sister  States,  and  respectfully  request 
them  to  enact  such  PENAL  LAWS  as  will  finally  put  an  end  to  the  malig- 
nant deeds  of  the  abolitionists.” 

Gov.  Gayle,  of  Alabama,  had  previously  demanded  of  Gov. 
Marcy,  of  New  York,  that  E.  G.  Williams,  publishing  agent 


* The  Fugitive  Slave  law  of  1850  seems  well  calculated  to  fulfil  the  prediction  ! 
t The  reader  will  notice  the  striking  coincidence  between  this  language  of  Gov. 
McDuffie  and  that  of  the  “ Literary  and  Theological  Review,"  viz  : “justly  liable  to 
the  highest  civil  penalties  and  ecclesiastical  censures.” 


414 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


of  the  American  Anti-Slavery  Society^  should  be  delivered, 
up  to  be  tried  byr  the  laws  of  Alabama,  (a  State  into  which 
he  had  never  set  his  foot,)  on  an  indictment  against  him  by 
the  Grand  Jury  of  Tuscaloosa  County,  Ala.,  for  publishing  in 
the  Emancipator,  at  New  York,  the  following  sentences : 

“ God  commands,  and  all  nature  cries  out,  that  man  should  not  be  held 
as  property.  The  system  of  making  men  property  has  plunged  2,250,000 
of  our  fellow-countrymen  into  the  deepest  physical  and  moral  degradation, 
and  they  are  every  moment  sinking  deeper.” 

In  making  this  demand,  Gov.  Gale  says : 

“ It  is  admitted  that  the  offender  was  not  in  this  State  when  his  crime 
was  committed,  and  that  he  has  not  fled  therefrom,  according  to  the  strict 
literal  import  of  that  term.” 

Gov.  Marcy,  as  may  well  be  supposed,  declined  acceding  to 
the  demand.  But  it  was  expected  that  that  class  of  offenses 
might  be  punished  itnder  laws  to  be  enacted  in  New  York. 

Feb.  16,  1836,  both  houses  of  the  Legislature  of  Virginia 
agreed  to  the  following: 

“ Resolved , That  the  non-slaveholding  States  of  the  Union  are  respect- 
fully but  earnestly  requested  promptly  to  adopt  PENAL  ENACTMENTS, 
or  such  other  measures,  as  will  EFFECTUALLY  SUPPRESS  ALL 
associations  within  their  respective  limits  purporting  to  be,  or  having  the 
character  of  abolition  societies.” 

Resolutions  adopted  “ unanimously,”  about  the  same  time, 
by  the  Legislature  of  Georgia,  included  the  following: 

“ Resolved , That  it  is  deeply  incumbent  on  the  people  of  the  North  to 
CRUSH  the  traitorous  designs  of  the  abolitionists.” 

These  demands  were  officially  communicated  to  the  Gov- 
ernors of  the  non-slaveholding  States,  and  by  them  were  laid 
before  the  respective  Legislatures,  as  matters  deserving  grave 
consideration  and  decision.  It  is  not  known  to  the  writer 
that  in  doing  this,  a single  northern  Governor  availed  himself 
of  the  opportunity  to  express  an  opinion  adverse  to  these  de- 
mands, much  less  to  speak  of  them  in  terms  of  merited  indig- 
nation and  rebuke.  On  the  other  hand,  we  have  to  record 
such  specimens  of  servility  and  treachery  as  the  following: 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


415 


Edward  Everett,  (whig)  Governor  of  Massachusetts,  in  his 
lessage  communicating  the  southern  documents,  held  the 
blowing  language : 

“Whatever  by  direct  and  necessary  operation  is  calculated  to  excite  an 
iiirrection  among  the  slaves,  has  been  held,  by  highly  respectable  legal 
:thority,  an  offense  against  the  peace  of  this  Commonwealth,  which  may 
prosecuted  as  a misdemeanor  at  common  law.” 

William  L.  Marcv,  (democratic)  Governor  of  the  State  of 
ew-York,  in  his  message  on  the  same  subject,,  spoke  as  fol- 
ws : 

“ Without  the  power  to  pass  such  laws  the  States  would  not  possess  all 
e necessary  means  for  preserving  their  external  relations  of  peace  among 
emselves.” 

This  was  in  January,  1836.  In  the  Legislature  of  Ehode 
land,  Feb.  2d,  Mr.  Hazard,  of  Newport,  Chairman  of  a Com- 
ittee  appointed  on  the  subject,  at  a previous  session,  in  Oc- 
her, 1835,"  reported  a bill  in  conformity  with  the  southern 
smands. 

While  this  question  was  pending  in  the  legislatures  of  the 
orthern  states,  the  influence  of  the  Federal  Executive  was 
rought  to  bear  on  the  side  of  the  Slave  Power,  and  against 
le  freedom  of  the  press.  The  occasion  for  exerting  this  in- 
uence  was  presented  by  the  excitement  growing  out  of  the 
•ansmission  of  anti-slavery  publications,  through  the  United 
tates’  Mails.  Some  of  these  publications  were  gratuitously 
mt,  not  to  any  portion  of  the  colored  people,  either  the  free 
r the  enslaved,  but  to  prominent  citizens,  statesmen,  clergy- 
len,  merchants,  planters,  and  professional  gentlemen  at  the 
luth,  whose  names  and  residences  were  known  at  the  north, 
here  could  be  no  reasonable  pretense  that  this  measure  could 
xcite  an  insurrection  of  the  slaves.  Gen.  Duff  Green,  Editor 
f the  Washington  Telegraph,  one  of  the  most  violent  oppo- 

* This,  it  will  be  noticed,  was  about  two  months  previous  to  the  earliest  action  in 
re  Legislatures  of  the  Southern  States — so  that,  in  reality,  the  measure  of  legisla- 
ve  suppression  was  first  broached  in  the  Legislature  of  a Northern  State!  The 
ibject  was  introduced  into  the  Legislature  of  Rhode  Island  by  Mr.  Hazard,  who 
'id  presented  resolutions  of  a public  meeting  in  Newport,  recommending  the  measure. 


416 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


sers  of  abolitionists,  admitted  that  there  was  little  or  no  dar 
ger  of  this ; and  that  the  real  ground  of  apprehension  wa' 
that  the  publications  would  “ operate  upon  the  consciences  an 
fears  of  slaveholders  themselves,  from  the  insinuation  of  thei 
dangerous  heresies  into  our  schools,  out  pulpits  and  our  dc 
mestic  circles.” — “It  is  only,”  (said  he,)  “by  alarming  th 
consciences  of  the  weak  and  feeble,  and  by  diffusing  amon; 
our  own  people  a morbid  sensibility  on  the  subject  of  slavery 
that  abolitionists  can  accomplish  their  object.  Preparator 
to  this,  they  are  now  saturating  the  non-slaveholding  State 
with  the  belief  that  slavery  is  a sin  against  God,”  &c. 

The  riotous  outrage  upon  the  Post-office  and  the  II.  S.  Mai 
at  Charleston,  (S.  C.)  July  29,  1835,  has  already  been  alludec 
to.  From  an  editorial  of  the  Charleston  Courier,  it  appear: 
that  “arrangements  had  previously  been  made  at  the  Post 
office  in  the  city,  to  arrest  the  circulation  of  incendiary 
matter,  until  instructions  could  be  received  from  the  Post, 
office  Department  at  Washington.”  The  Editor  therefon 
thought  “ it  might  have  been  better,  perhaps,  to  havt 
awaited  the  application  for  instructions  before  proceeding: 
to  extremities.”  In  reply  to  this  application,  Aug.  5,  the 
Postmaster  General,  Amos  Kendall,  (a  northern  man)  said 

' “ I am  satisfied  that  the  Postmaster  General  has  no  legal  authority  to! 
exclude  newspapers  from  the  mail,  nor  to  prohibit  their  carriage  or  delivery 
on  account  of  their  character  or  tendency,  real  or  supposed.”  “ But  I an ; 
not  prepared  to  direct  you  to  forward  or  deliver  the  papers  of  which  you 
speak.”  “ By  no  act  or  direction  of  mine,  official  or  private,  could  I be 
induced  to  aid,  knowingly,  in  giving  circulation  to  papers  of  this  description, 
directly  or  indirectly.  We  owe  an  obligation  to  the  laws,  but  a higher  one 
to  the  communities  in  which  we  live,  and  if  the  former  be  permitted  to  de- 
stroy the  latter,  it  is  patriotism  to  disregard  them.  Entertaining  these 
views,  I cannot  sanction,  and  will  not  condemn,  the  step  you  have  taken.! 
Your  justification  must  be  looked  for  in  the  character  of  the  papers  detained, 
and  the  circumstances  by  which  you  are  surrounded.” 

Other  Postmasters  followed  the  example  of  the  Post- 
master at  Charleston.  The  measure  of  suppression  was  not! 
confined  to  the  South.  The  Postmaster  at  New-York, 
Samuel  L.  Gouverneur,  Esq.,  proposed  to  the  Anti-Slavery 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


417 


Society,  “ voluntarily  to  desist  from  attempting  to  send  their 
mblications  into  the  southern  states,  by  public  mails.”  The 
>roposition  was  declined.  In  answer  to  a letter  from  Mr. 
xouverneur  to  the  Postmaster  General,  Mr.  Kendall  wrote 
n elaborate  reply,  Aug.  22,  in  which  he  said  : 

“ I am  deterred  from  giving  an  order  to  exclude  the  whole  series  of  aboli- 
on  publications  from  the  Southern  mails  only  by  a want  of  legal  power, 
ad  if  I were  situated  as  you  are,  I would  do  as  you  have  done.” 

President  Jackson  introduced  the  subject  into  his  annual 
lessage,  Dec.,  1835,  accusing  abolitionists  of  “ unconstitu- 
onal  and  wicked  attempts,”  and  recommending  as  follows: 

“ I would  therefore  call  the  special  attention  of  Congress  to  the  subject, 
id  respectfully  suggest  the  propriety  of  passing  such  a law  as  will  pro- 
bit, under  severe  penalties,  the  circulation,  in  the  Southern  States,  through 
le  mail,  of  incendiary  publications,  intended  to  instigate  the  slaves  to  insur- 
:ction.” 

The  winter  of  1885-6  was  a dark  day  for  the  prospects  of 
orthern  freedom.  Except  by  the  intended  victims  of  this 
roscription,  few,  feeble,  and  hated  as  they  were,  no  voice  of 
imonstrance  was  uttered,  no  symptoms  of  alarm  were  ex- 
ibited.  The  adoption  of  the  measures  proposed  to  Congress 
id  to  the  Legislatures  of  Massachusetts,  JSTew- York,  Rhode 
land,  and  other  free  states,  was  anticipated,  as  a matter  of 
mrse.  The  majority  of  intelligent  citizens  expected  no 
Lher  result.  Abolitionists  redoubled  their  efforts,  knowing 
lat  all  was  at  stake. 

A searching  Review  of  his  Message,  in  the  form  of  a solemn 
rotest,  was  addressed  to  President  Jackson,  by  the  Executive 
ommittee  of  the  American  Anti-Slavery  Society  at  New 
ork.  In  the  bold  and  dignified  language  of  conscious  inno- 
;nce,  they  denied  the  charges  he  had  brought  against  them, 

’ insurrectionary  designs.  They  invited  investigation  by  a 
ommittee  of  Congress,  and  offered  to  submit  to  their  inspec- 
on  all  their  publications,  all  their  correspondence,  and  all 
.eir  accounts,  and  promising  to  attest  them,  and  to  answer 
rery  question  under  oath.  No  notice  was  ever  taken  by  the 
resident  of  this  Protest,  but  it  must  have  had  its  effect.  His 

27 


418 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


charges  were  never  repeated  by  President  Jackson,  or  by  an; 
of  his  successors. 

An  Anti-Slavery  Convention  at  Providence  (R.  I.)  fo 
forming  a Rhode  Island  State  Anti-Slavery  Society,  Peb.  2 
1836,  had  been  invited  by  a call  of  respectable  citizens  in  al 
parts  of  the  State.  It  was  numerously  attended,  well  sus 
tained,  and  did  much  to  revive  the  spirit  of  Roger  William; 
iu  that  part  of  New  England. 

A joint  Committee  of  both  Houses  of  the  Legislature  oi 
Massachusetts,  Senator  Lunt,  Chairman,  was  appointed  to  con 
sider  and  report,  upon  the  southern  demands.  Abolitionist 
requested  the  customary  privilege  of  a hearing  before  thi 
Committee,  but  no  notice,  for  a long  time,  was  taken  of  tin 
request.  It  was  believed  that  no  hearing  would  be  given 
The  Anti-Slavery  Committee  at  Boston,  were  at  length  unex 
pectedly  notified  that  an  audience  would  be  given  them,  th< 
very  next  day,  March  4th,  1836.  They  hastily  rallied,  selectee 
their  advocates,  and  prepared  for  their  defense.  The  inter 
view  was  held  in  the  Representatives’  Hall,  neither  of  tin 
houses  being  in  session,  but  most  of  the  members  of  botl 
houses,  and  many  prominent  citizens  being  present.  Afte 
remarks  by  Rev.  Samuel  J.  May,  and  Ellis  Gray  Loring,  Esq. 
they  were  followed  by  Prof.  Charles  Follen,  who,  in  the 
course  of  his  remarks,  alluded  to  the  recent  outrages  agains 
abolitionists,  observing  that  any  legislative  enactments  o 
censures  against  the  already  persecuted  party,  would  tend  t< 
encourage  their  assailants,  and  increase  their  persecutions 
Taking  offense  at  this  remark,  the  Chairman,  Mr.  Lunt 
silenced  Prof.  Follen,  and  abruptly  terminated  the  interview 
whereupon  the  abolitionists  took  prompt  measures  for  issu 
ing  their  suppressed  defense  in  a pamphlet  form,  which,  com 
prising  above  40  pages,  was  prepared  for  the  press  in  the  twe 
following  days.  A Boston  Editor,  Benjamin  F.  Hallet,  Esq. 
gave  some  account  of  the  proceedings,  and  said  the  abolition 
ists  were  entitled  to  a fair  hearing.  The  Legislature  directec 
their  Committee  to  allow  a completion  of  the  defense,  whicl 
was  accordingly  notified  for  Monday,  P.  M.,  the  8th  instj 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


419 


?he  adjacent  country  was  by  this  time  roused,  and  the  hall 
f the  Representatives  was  crowded.  Prof.  Follen  concluded 
us  speech,  and  was  followed  by  Samuel  E.  Sewall,  Esq., 
William  Lloyd  Garrison,  and  William  Goodell,  the  latter  of 
/horn,  instead  of  making  any  farther  defense  of  abolition- 
sts,  or  proving  that  their  publications  were  not  insurrection- 
ry,  proceeded  to  charge  upon  the  southern  states  who  had 
aade  these  demands,  a conspiracy  against  the  liberties  of  the 
ree  North.  This  opened  an  entire  new  field.  Great  uneasi- 
ess  was  manifested  by  the  Committee,  but  the  speaker, 
hough  repeatedly  interrupted  by  the  Chairman,  succeeded  in 
uoting  the  language  of  Gov.  McDuffie’s  message,  and  in  cha- 
acterizing  the  southern  documents,  to  which  he  pointed,  lying 
n the  table  of  the  Committee  before  him,  as  being  fetters  for 
orthern  freemen.  He  had  commenced  making  the  inquiry — 
Mr.  Chairman  ! Are  you  prepared  to  attempt  putting  them 
n?” — but  the  sentence  was  only  about  half  finished,  when 
he  stentorian  voice  of  the  Chairman  interrupted  him: — “ Sit 
'own,  sir  /” — He  sat  down.  The  Legislative  Committee  pre- 
ently  began  to  move  from  their  seats,  but  the  audience  sat 
•etrified  with  suppressed  feeling.  The  late  Dr.  William  E. 
lhanning  was  seated  among  the  abolitionists,  though  not  in 
arm  nor  in  sentiment  fully  identified  with  them.  On  such  an 
ccasion  he  could  not  be  absent,  and  his  presence  was  felt, 
lis  countenance  seemed  to  express  what  words  could  not 
uave  uttered ; more  eloquent  in  silence  than  even  he  could 
iave  been  in  speech.  The  Legislative  Committee  themselves 
ingered,  as  in  vague  expectation.  Then  rose  a respectable 
aerchant  of  Boston,  Mr.  Bond,  unaccustomed,  as  he  said,  to 
■ublic  speaking,  and  begged  the  Committee  to  wait  a few 
ainutes.  It  was  growing  dark,  and  the  hall  unlighted,  but 
hey  sat  down.  Mr.  Bond  briefly  reminded  them  that  free- 
.om  of  speech  and  of  the  press  could  never  be  surrendered 
>y  the  sons  of'  the  pilgrims.  He  was  followed  by  another 
olunteer,  a Dr.  Bradley,  from  old  Plymouth  rock.  The 
lommittee  then  rose  again,  and,  with  the  audience,  slowly 
nd  quietly  retired.  A low  murmur  of  voices,  though  too 


420 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


low  to  be  distinctly  articulate,  was  heard  through  the  din 
hall  of  the  People’s  Eepresentatives,  but  the  very  tones  of' 
which,  like  the  distant  roar  of  the  sea,  told  of  power.  The 
printed  plea  of  the  abolitionists  was,  three  days  afterwards, 
on  the  desk  of  each  member  of  the  Legislature,  in  the  hands 
of  the  Governor,  and  in  process  of  circulation  through  the 
Commonwealth.  Mr.  Lunt  and  his  Committee  delayed  thcii 
Eeport,  till  near  the  close  of  the  session,  several  weeks  after 
wards.  It  was  a stale  repetition  of  trite  declamation  on  the 
subject,  but  recommending  no  distinct  action  by  the  legisla- 
ture. What  disposition  was  made  of  it  we  do  not  remember, 
and  the  political  prospects  of  Mr.  Senator  Lunt  shared  its 
oblivion. 

“ As  goes  Massachusetts,  so  goes  New  England.”  The  bill 
of  Mr.  Hazard,  in  the  Legislature  of  Ehode  Island,  was  de- 
feated by  the  energy  and  spirit  of  two  members  from  Provi- 
dence, George  Curtiss  and  Thomas  W.  Dorr. 

By  the  Legislature  of  the  State  of  New-York,  a Eeport  war 
adopted  in  May,  1836,  responding  to  the  sentiments  of  Gov, 
Marcy’s  Message,  and  pledging  the  faith  of  the  State  to  enact 
such  laws  whenever  they  shall  be  requisite.  This  Eeport  ap- 
pears to  have  been  sent  to  the  Governors  of  the  Southern 
States,  but  never  appeared  in  the  organ  of  the  New-York 
State  Administration,  (the  Albany  Argus)  in  which  the  acts 
of  the  State  Government  are  “by  authority”  published.  The 
citizens  of  the  State  of  New-York,  in  general,  (including  abo- 
litionists who  were  watching  for  the  document)  were  unap- 
prized of  its  contents  until  they  saw  it  quoted,  the  winter 
following,  in  the  message  of  the  acting  Governor  of  Virginia. 
There  were  indications,  in  the  year  1837,  in  the  State  of  New 
York,  that  the  project  of  legislative  suppression  was  not  re- 
linquished. 

The  proposition  of  President  Jackson  to  Congress,  for  an 
act  prohibiting,  under  severe  penalties,  the  circulation  of  in- 
surrectionary publications  through  the  mails,  was  referred  to 
a Select  Committee,  of  which  John  C.  Calhoun  was  Chairman,] 
by  whom  a Eeport  was  submitted,  Feb.  4th,  1836,  of  a very 


SLAVERY  AND  FREE  DO  if. 


421 


emarkable  character.  It  conclusively  proved  and  maintained 
hat  the  measure  recommended  by  the  President  would  be  a 
-iolation  of  the  Constitution  and  an  infringement  of  the  liber- 
ies secured  under  it.  It  would,  moreover,  be  unsafe  for  the 
nterests  of  slavery. 

“ Nothing  is  more  clear,”  says  the  Report,  “ than  that  the  admission  of 
he  right  to  Congress  to  determine  what  papers  are  incendiary,  and,  as  such, 
d prohibit  their  circulation  through  the  mail,  necessarily  involves  the  right 
o determine  what  are  not  incendiary,  and  enforce  their  circulation.”  . . . 
If  Congress  may  this  year  decide  what  incendiary  publications  are,  they 
lay,  next  year,  decide  what  they  are  not,  and  thus  laden  their  mails  with 
eal  though  covert  abolitionism.”  . . - “ It  belongs  to  the  states,  and  not  to 
Congress,  to  determine  what  is  or  is  not  calculated  to  disturb  their  security.” 

The  Report,  therefore,  proceeded  to  maintain  that  when 
he  several  states  had  determined,  severally,  what  publications 
rere  incendiary,  the  Federal  Government  and  all  the  other 
hates,  were  bound  to  conform  to  those  determinations,  and 
,ct  accordingly.  Congress  must  enact  a law  prohibiting  the 
ransmission  of  such  publications  through  the  mails,  and  every 
>ther  State  in  the  Union  is  bound  to  pass  laws  in  concurrence, 
hat  is,  prohibiting  publication  and  discussion ! Thus  Con- 
gress and  all  the  States  were  to  be  controlled  by  the  legisla- 
ion  of  one  State  ! And  powers  unsafe  to  be  conferred  by  the 
)eople  upon  their  Representatives  in  Congress,  (as  the  Report 
iad  shown)  were  nevertheless  to  be  exercised  by  the  legisla- 
te of  a single  slave  State,  over  the  whole  country!  The 
deport  was  accompanied  by  a Bill  in  accordance  with  its  re- 
ommendations.  It  contained  the  following : 

“ Be  it  enacted , &c.,  That  it  shall  not  be  lawful  for  any  deputy  post- 
laster,  in  any  State,  Territory,  or  District,  of  the  United  States,  know- 
igly,  to  deliver  to  any  person  whatsoever,  any  pamphlet,  newspaper,  hand- 
ill,  or  other  printed  paper  or  pictorial  representation,  touching  the  subject 
f slavery,  where,  by  the  laws  of  the  said  State,  Territory,  or  District, 
ueir  circulation  is  prohibited,  and  any  deputy  postmaster  who  shall  be 
uilty  thereof,  shall  be  forthwith  removed  from  office.” 

On  the  question  of  a third  reading  in  the  Senate,  the  votes 
vere  eighteen  to  eighteen.  The  Vice  President,  Mr.  Van 


422 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


Buren,  came  forward  and  voted  for  tlie  reading.  It  was  how 
ever  defeated  on  the  final  vote. 

The  project  of  restrictive  legislation  over  the  mails,  wa: 
abandoned.  Hot  only  so : the  credit  of  the  Post-office  De 
partment  was  found  to  have  received  such  a shock  by  th< 
disorders  that  had  given  rise  to  these  projects,  that,  insteac 
of  an  act  requiring  such  a discrimination  as  the  President  ha( 
recommended,  the  nation  was  astonished  with  an  enactment 
approved  by  the  Presidential  signature,  "(after  having  beei 
passed  without  debate)  prohibiting  such  a discrimination  unde 
severe  and  degrading  penalties.  The  right  of  abolitionist; 
to  the  use  of  the  United  States’  mails  was  thus  established 
And  before  the  close  of  the  same  session,  Mr.  Calhoun  con 
ceded,  in  the  Senate,  that  the  purposes  and  operations  of  the 
abolitionists  were  only  moral  and  suasive,  and  not  violent  anc 
insurrectionary. 

ASSAULTS  ON  THE  RIGHT  OF  PETITION. 

Since  neither  riots  nor  legislation  were  likely  to  crush  tin 
abolitionists,  the  next  expedient  was  to  break  down  the  righ 
of  petition,  and  to  stifle  the  discussion  in  Congress.  Abo 
litionists  had  deluged  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representa 
fives  with  petitions  for  the  abolition  of  slavery  in  the  Federal 
District  and  Territories,  and  for  the  prohibition  of  the  inter 
state  slave  trade.  How  came  the  era  of  the  “ gags." 

We  give  a list  of  them  with  the  names  of  the  movers,  th( 
dates,  and  the  votes  in  the  House,  by  which  they  were  carried 

1.  Pinckney’s,  May  26th,  1836. — Yeas  117 — Hays  68. 

2.  Hawes’,  Jan.  18th,  1837. — Yeas  115 — Hays  47. 

3.  Patton’s,  Dec.  21st,  1837. — Yeas  122 — Hays  74. 

4.  Atherton’s,  Jan.  12th,  1838. — Yeas  126 — Hays  78. 

5.  Johnson’s,  incorporated  into  the  standing  rules  of  the 
House,  and  thenceforward  known  as  the  21st  rule.  Jan.  28 
1840.— Yeas  114— Hays  108. 

On  the  7th  of  June,  1841,  during  an  extra  session,  the  vot( 
by  which  this  rule  was  “discarded”  was — Yeas  112 — Hays 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


423 


104.  This  was  done  by  a vote  adopting  all  the  standing  rules, 
excepting  the  21s#,  but  a special  rule  was  immediately  afterwards 
adopted,  applicable  only  to  the  extra  session,  by  Avhich  it  was 
established  that  on  the  presentation  of  petitions  on  subjects 
not  included  in  the  President’s  Message,  (except  a bankrupt 
law)  “ objection  to  the  reception  shall  be  considered  as  made, 
and  the  question  of  reception  shall  be  laid  on  the  table.”  This 
was,  in  effect,  a new  gag  of  a general  character,  operating  upon 
anti-slavery  petitions,  but  not  confined  to  them.  All  petitions 
as  well  as  abolition  petitions,  were  excluded,  and  people  began 
to  open  their  eyes  to  the  fact  that  the  entire  nation,  as  well  as 
the  troublesome  agitators,  were  gagged  ! 

The  original  gag  of  Mr.  Pinckney  was  as  follows : 

“ Resolved,  That  all  petitions,  memorials,  resolutions,  and  propositions, 
relating,  in  any  way,  or  to  any  extent,  whatever,  to  the  subject  of 
slavery,  shall,  without  being  either  printed  or  referred,  be  laid  on  the  table, 
and  no  further  action  whatever  shall  be  had  thereon.” 

The  succeeding  ones  were  substantially  the  same. 

In  the  session  of  1841-2,  a Report  was  prepared  re-enacting 
the  gag ; but  fearing  to  trust  a vote  upon  it  in  the  House,  its 
authors  adroitly  laid  it  on  the  table,  under  the  previous  ques- 
tion, where  it  could  not  be  taken  up  without  a two-thirds  vote. 
The  effect  of  this  (the  extra  session  having  passed)  was  to  re- 
store the  21st  Rule.  This  was  continued  until  December, 
1845,  when  it  was  finally  rescinded. 

JOHN  QUINCY  ADAMS. 

The  long  protracted  efforts  of  John  Quincy  Adams,  who 
was  not  an  immediate  abolitionist,  to  restore  the  right  of  peti- 
tion, are  too  well  understood  to  require  a minute  record  in 
this  place.  They  constituted  the  crowning  act  of  his  laborious 
public  life,  and  rendered  him  the  benefactor  of  his  country. 
Mr.  Adams  also  opposed  the  annexation  of  Texas,  and  the 
Mexican  war.  He  declared  that  the  General  Government,  in 
time  of  war,  had  a discretionary  power  to  emancipate  the 
slaves.  He  proposed  in  Congress  a plan  for  the  prospective 


424 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


abolition  of  slavery,  through  an  amendment  of  the  Constiti 
tion,  a proposition  which,  by-the-by,  received  no  favor  eithe- 
at  the  North  or  the  South,  thus  testing  the  sincerity  of  thos 
who  professed  to  be  opposed  to  slavery,  and  in  favor  of  it 
gradual  removal,  while  they  only  deprecated  the  impruden 
measures  of  the  immediatists.  Mr.  Adams  was  threatene( 
with  assassination,  with  an  indictment  by  a Grand  Jury  of 
the  District,  and  with  expulsion  from  the  House.  A forma 
effort  was  made  to  pass  a censure  upon  him,  but  it  did  no 
succeed. 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


425 


CHAPTER  XXXV. 

OPPOSITION  FROM  LEADING  CLERGY  AND  ECCLESIASTICAL 
BODIES. 

ecapitulation  of  Preceding  Statements — Theological  Seminaries— Ecclesiastical 
Bodies — Law  of  Lane  Seminary  against  discussion  (1S34)— Conference  of  Meth. 
Epis.  Ch.,  Cincinnati  (1836) — Ohio  Annual  Conference  (previous) — New  York  An- 
nual Conference,  (June,  1S36,  183S) — Sentiments  of  Methodist  Ministers — Official 
course  of  Presiding  Elders  and  Bishops — Presbyterian  Synod  of  Philadelphia — 
Associations  of  Congregational  Ministers  in  Connecticut  and  Massachusetts  in 
1836 — “Pastoral  Letters”  of 1836,  and  1837 — Extraordinary  claims  of  Congregational 
Pastors — Origin  of  disaffection  towards  the  Clergy  on  the  part  of  a class  of  Abo- 
litionists. 

While  these  efforts  were  making  to  put  down  abolitionists 
y mob  violence,  by  State  legislation,  by  denunciations  from 
lie  Federal  Executive,  by  violations  of  the  U.  S.  Mails,  by 
losing  the  Post-offices  against  their  publications,  by  gagging 
iscussion  in  Congress,  and  overthrowing  the  people’s  right 
f petition,  there  was  still  another  power,  more  potent  than  all 
tie  others,  standing  behind  and  sustaining  them  all,  with  which 
bolitionists  were  called  to  contend.  We  mean  the  prevailing 
nd  predominant  religious  influences  of  the  country,  repre- 
ented  by  and  controlling  theological  seminaries,  religious 
ssociations,  churches,  and  ecclesiastical  bodies.  It  is  the  reli- 
ion  of  a country  that  shapes  its  political  and  social  manifest- 
tions,  under  all  forms  of  government,  more  especially  under 
liose  of  a popular  character. 

The  position  of  the  principal  religious  sects,  respecting 
lavery,  was  exhibited  in  former  chapters.*  It  appeared  also 
a their  support  of  the  Colonization  Society.-}-  The  opposition 


Chap.  XII.  to  XVIII. 


t Chap.  XXIX. 


426 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


of  Theological  Reviews,  of  religious  journals,  and  of  pron 
nent  clergymen,  has  been  adverted  to  in  the  present  conne' 
tion.*  It  was  to  be  expected  that  corresponding  manifest 
tions  should  be  witnessed  in  Theological  Seminaries  and  tl 
action  of  ecclesiastical  bodies.  A few  specimens  must  suffic 
in  this  record. 

Among  the  earliest  and  boldest  attempts  to  suppress  tl 
discussion  of  the  slave  question  in  America,  we  have  to  recoi 
the  gag  law  of  Lane  Seminary,  Ohio,  October  6,  1834,  1 
which  the  students  were  ordered  to  disband  both  their  Ant 
Slavery  and  Colonization  Societies,  (for  it  was  important  1 
appear  impartial,)  and,  in  a standing  rule,  forbidden  to  lectur 
deliver  addresses,  or  hold  meetings  among  themselves,  exce] 
of  a devotional  character.  This  was  during  the  reign  of  me1 
violence  against  abolitionists,  and  more  than  a year  befoi 
the  demands  of  Gov.  McDuffie  and  his  Southern  associah 
upon  the  free  States  of  the  North.  The  well  known  occasic 
was  the  formation  of  a flourishing  Anti-Slavery  Societ 
Though  most  of  the  students  left  the  Seminary  in  consequence 
and  the  laws  were  soon  after  repealed,  yet  the  same  spirit  pe 
vaded  theological  and  literary  institutions  in  general,  and  ii 
fluences  were  generally  exerted  in  them  which  prevented  fre 
■discussion  and  inquiry. 

In  showing  the  position  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Churc 
on  the  slave  question,  we  have  already  noticed  the  declaratio 
of  its  General  Conference  at  Cincinnati,  in  1836,  in  whic 
they  “ disclaim  any  right,  wish,  or  intention,  to  interfere  in  th 
civil  and  political  relation  between  master  and  slave,  as  it  ex. 
ists  in  the  slaveholding  States  of  this  Union.”  At  this  sain 
Conference  a preamble  and  resolutions  were  adopted  depre 
eating  “ the  great  excitement  on  the  subject  of  modern  aboli 
tionism,”  and  the  course  of  some  of  its  members,  as  “ calculate! 
to  bring  upon  this  body  the  suspicion  and  distrust  of  the  com 
munity.”  They  declared  themselves  “ decidedly  opposed  ti 
modern  abolitionism.”  It  was  also 


* See  last  two  chapters. 


SLAVERY  AXD  FREEDOM. 


427 


“ Resolved,  by  the  Delegates  of  the  Annual  Conferences,  in  General  Con- 
?renee  assembled,  that  they  disapprove,  in  the  most  unqualified  sense,  the 
onduct  of  the  two  members  of  the  General  Conference,  who  are  reported 
> have  lectured  in  this  city  recently,  upon,  and  in  favor  of,  modern  aboli- 
onism.” 

This  resolution  was  adopted  by  a vote  of  122  to  11.  The 
rover,  Rev.  S.  Gr.  Roszell,  was  reported  to  have  said,  in  the 
ebate,  that  he  wished  the  Rev.  Orange  Scott  (one  of  the  een- 
ured  members)  was  in  heaven — (that  is,  he  wished  he  was 
.ead :) — in  perfect  keeping  with  the  murderous  sentiments  so 
:eely  expressed  by  pro-slavery  clergymen  at  that  period, 
ome  specimens  of  which  the  reader  has  already  seen. 

This  same  Conference  received  a friendly  address  from  the 
-lethodist  Wesleyan  Conference  in  England,  on  the  subject  of 
lavery,  but  refused  to  publish  it.  They  adopted,  moreover, 

, pastoral  address  to  the  communicants  of  the  M.  E.  Church, 
a which,  after  stating  that  the  “Constitutional  Compact”  be- 
ween  the  States  precluded  Church  action  against  slavery,  they 
dded, 

“ These  facts,  which  are  only  mentioned  here  as  a reason  for  the  friendly 
dmonition  which  we  wish  to  give  you,  constrain  us,  as  your  pastors,  who 
re  called  to  watch  over  your  souls,  as  they  must  give  an  account,  to  ex- 
ort  you  to  abstain  from  all  abolition  movements  and  associations,  and  to 
efrain  from  patronizing  any  of  their  publications,”  &c.  &c.  * * * 

“ From  every  view  of  the  subject  which  we  have  been  able  to  take,  and 
rom  the  most  calm  and  dispassionate  survey  of  the  whole  ground,  we  have 
ome  to  the  conclusion  that  the  only  safe, 'scriptural,  and  prudent  way  for 
,s,  both  as  ministers  and  people,  to  take,  is,  wholly  to  refrain  from 
■his  agitating  subject,”  &c. — Signed  by  order  and  in  behalf  of  the 
General  Conference  of  the  M.  E.  Church,  by  the  Bishops. 

The  General  Conference  represented  both  the  northern  and 
he  southern  portions  of  the  M.  E.  Church,  acting  together. 
3ut  northern  Annual  Conferences  took  the  same  ground. 

The  Ohio  Annual  Conference  had,  a short  time  before , 
Resolved, 

1.  “ That  we  deeply  regret  the  proceedings  of  the  abolitionists  and  anti- 
slavery  societies  in  the  free-  States,  and  the  consequent  excitement  produced 
hereby  in  the  slave  States,  that  we,  as  a Conference,  disclaim  all  connection 
ind  co-operation  with,  or  belief  in  the  same,  and  that  we  hereby  recommend 


428 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


to  our  junior  preachers,  local  brethren,  and  private  members  within  o 
bounds,  to  abstain  from  any  connection  with  them,  or  participation  of  tr- 
acts, in  the  premises,  whatever. 

2.  “That  those  brethren  and  citizens  of  the  North  who  resist  the  ab 
lition  movements  with  firmness  and  moderation,  are  the  true  friends  to  ti 
Church,  to  the  slaves  of  the  South,  and  to  the  Constitution  of  our  commi 
country,”  &c. 

The  New- York  Annual  Conference,  in  June,  1836,  aj 
proved  the  doings  of  the  General  Conference,  and  disapprove 
the  patronizing  of  Zion’s  AVatchman,  an  anti-slavery  Metl 
odist  paper,  edited  by  Eev.  La  Eoy  Sunderland.  It  also  R< 
solved  that — 

* * * “ We  are  decidedly  of  the  opinion  that  none  ought  to  be  electe 

to  the  office  of  a deacon  or  elder  in  our  church,  unless  he  give  a pledg 
to  the  Conference  that  he  will  refrain  from  agitating  the  churc 
on  this  subject,”  &c.  &c. 

In  1838,  the  same  Conference  resolved  that  any  of  its  men 
bers  or  probationers  who  should  patronize  Zion’s  AYatchmar 
recommend  it,  circulate  it,  obtain  subscribers,  or  collect  o 
remit  monej^s  for  it,  “shall  be  deemed  guilty  of  indiscretior 
and  dealt  with  accordingly.” 

“The  Rev.  George  W.  Langhorne,  of  North  Carolina,  in  writing  to  th> 
editor  of  Zion's  Watchman,  June  25,  1836,  said  : 

' “ If  you  have  not  yet  resigned  your  credentials  as  a minister  of  the  Metho 
dist  Episcopal  Church,  I really  think  that,  as  an  honest  man,  you  shout 
now  do  it.”  “ You  are  bound  to  submit  to  their  authority  [the  Genera 
Conference],  or  leave  the  church.” 

This  sentiment,  that  abolitionists  ought  to  quit  the  churches 
or  cease  disturbing  their  peace  by  anti-slavery  agitation,  was 
very  current  in  the  churches  of  most  sects,  even  at  the  North, 
at  this  period,  though  much  has  been  since  said  against  the 
sin  of  schism,  when  abolitionists  secede. 

Presiding  Elders  refused  to  put  anti-slavery  resolutions  in  Quarterly 
Conferences,  but  readily  put  pro-slavery  ones. 

Bishops  Hedding  and  Emory  addressed  a Pastoral  Letter  to  the  New 
England  and  New  Hampshire  Conferences,  in  which  the  anti-slavery  excite- 
ment in  that  part  of  the  country  was  discountenanced.  They  “advised 
the  preachers,  the  trustees,  and  official  and  other  members,  to  manifest  theii 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM.  429 

sapprobation,  and  to  refuse  the  use  of  their  pulpits  and  houses  for  such 
lrposes.” 

“ Bishop  Waugh  refused  to  put  a motion  to  raise  a committee  on  slavery 
the  N.  E.  Conference  of  1837,  and  declared  ‘that  there  should  be  no 
ipeal  from  his  decision  to  the  Conference.  Bishop  Hedding,  at  the  N.  E. 
onference,  in  1837,  refused  a motion  to  raise  a committee  on  slavery,  only 
i certain  conditions.’  ” 

“ Bishop  Soule,  presiding  at  the  New  England  Conference  of  the  M.  E. 
hurchin  1840,  refused  permission  asked  by  Rev.  O.  Scott  to  read  a memo- 
il  from  private  members  of  the  church,  requesting  the  Annual  Conference 
express  an  opinion  against  the  ‘ Colored  testimony  Resolution’  of  the 
eneral  Conference.” — True  Wesleyan,  Dec.  27,  1851. 

The  Presbyterian  Synod  of  Philadelphia,  about  the  same 
me,  re-echoed  the  stale  and  truthless  slanders  of  the  newspa- 
2rs  against  the  abolitionists. 

It  is  to  be  borne  in  mind  that  these  ecclesiastical  efforts  to 
tppress  the  discussion  of  the  slave  question,  in  May  and 
ane,  1836,  came  as  closely  as  possible  on  the  heel  of  the  leg- 
lative  attempts  to  the  same  effect,  in  the  national  and  state 
gislatures,  the  previous  winter,  being  the  first  opportunity 
lat  had  presented  itself  by  the  accustomed  annual  meetings 
: these  bodies,  since  the  famous  demands  of  the  Governors 
id  Legislatures  of  the  Slave  States.  They  are  to  be  inter- 
reted  in  the  light  of  the  silence  and  apparent  acquiescence 
? the  leading  clergy  and  religious  journalists,  during  that 
ark  period,  except  when,  as  already  stated,  their  influence 
•as  on  the  side  of  “ the  highest  civil  penalties  and  ecclesiastical 
3nsures.”  The  former  had  been  attempted,  and  (though,  in 
ame  states,  they  ■were  still  pending,)  there  was  a prospect  of 
reir  failure.  How  came  the  time  to  try  the  power  of  the 
it  ter.  The  authorities  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
■ere  speaking.  It  would  not  do  for  the  guardians  of  Hew 
ingland  Congregationalism  to  be  behind  them. 

The  Associations  of  Congregational  Ministers,  first  of  Con- 
ecticut,  and,  immediately  afterwards,  of  Massachusetts,  mov- 
ig  evidently  in  concert,  and  with  the  aid  of  prominent  Pres- 
/terian  clergymen  from  Hew-York  and  Ohio,  in  attendance 


430 


GEEAT  STEUGGLE  BETWEEN 


for  that  object,  united  in  adopting  a series  of  Resolution 
among  -which  was  the  following  : 

“ Resolved,  That  the  operations  of  itinerant  agents  and  lecturers  attemp 
ing  to  enlighten  the  churches  in  respect  to  particular  points  of  Christi; 
doctrine  and  of  Christian  morals,  and  to  control  the  religious  sentiment  < 
the  community  on  topics  which  fall  most  appropriately  within  the  sphere  c 
pastoral  instruction,  and  pastoral  discretion,  as  to  time  and  manner,  withoi 
the  advice  and  consent  of  the  pastors  and  regular  ecclesiastical  bodie 
are  an  unauthorized  interference  with  the  RIGHTS,  duties,  and  discretic 
of  the  stated  ministry,  dangerous  to  the  influence  of  the  pastoral  offic 
and  fatal  to  the  peace  and  good  order  of  the  churches.” 

The  evident  design  of  this  was  to  close  the  Congregation; 
meeting-houses  and  pulpits  against  anti-slavery  lecturers  an 
anti-slavery  meetings,  which  were  at  that  time  beginning  t 
be  greatly  multiplied,  and  which  were  exerting  a powerfi 
influence.  It  became  necessary,  for  the  sake  of  consistencj 
and  also  to  maintain  the  high  powers  thus  claimed  for  Cor 
gregational  pastors , to  apply  the  same  rule  to  “itineratin 
evangelists ,”  which  was  accordingly  done  in  another  Resolutior 
The  series  was  closed  by  a pledge  of  the  clergy,  “ that  w 
consider  ourselves  bound  to  sustain  each  other , and  the  churches 
in  standing  against  all  these  invasions  of  our  ecclesiastics, 
order.” 

Under  this  pledge,  even  abolitionists  belonging  to  th 
pastoral  body,  felt  themselves  bound  to  exclude  anti-slaver; 
lecturers  and  preachers  from  their  pulpits,  in  deference  ti 
the  wishes  of  the  clerical  body  to  which  they  belonged.  Thi 
Congregational  precedent  was  followed,  (as  designed  by  th 
movers,)  in  Presbyteries  and  Synods  of  the  Presbyteriai 
church,  all  over  the  free  states.  It  was  a flagrant  violatioi 
of  the  “ecclesiastical  order”  of  Congregationalism,  sustained 
only  by  the  bad  usages  under  the  old  “ Saybrook  Platform,’ 
by  which  Whitefield,  Tennant,  and  Finley  had  been  shu 
out  of  the  pulpits,  and  even  made  liable  to  imprisonmen 
and  banishment,  through  joint  ecclesiastical  and  legislative 
action,  a century  previous. 

It  was  objected  to  these  Resolutions,  while  under  discus 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


431 


cm  in  the  Connecticut  General  Association,  that  they  would 
tad  to  encourage  the  mobs  against  anti-slavery  lecturers, 
iaich  were  then  rife  in  that  region.  The  taunting  retort 
us,  that  abolitionists,  according  to  their  own  motto,  ought 
])t  to  shrink  from  the  consequences ! Among  the  abolition 
Icturers  then  at  work  in  Connecticut,  was  a Congregational 
linister  of  that  state.  He  persevered  in  the  work,  till,  find- 
:g  his  way  hedged  up  by  his  clerical  brethren,  he  retired 
am  the  field ; — not  because  a portion  of  the  people  in  the 
irishes  were  not  desirous  to  hear  him,  but  because  the  pus- 
’s would  not  suffer  him  to  be  heard ! 

A Pastoral  Letter  to  the  churches  accompanied  the  Reso- 
tions  of  1836,  and  breathing  the  same  spirit.  A still  more 
;mous  Pastoral  Letter  was  sent  forth  by  the  General  Associa- 
on  of  Massachusetts,  a year  afterwards,  June,  1837.  The 
fils  of  anti-slavery  agitation  had  not  ceased.  A new  class 
' anti-slavery  lecturers  had  appeared, -creating  still  greater 
arm.  Two  talented  Quaker  ladies,  the  Misses  Grimke, 
aughters  of  the  late  distinguished  Judge  Grimke,  of  South 
arolina,  once  slaveholders,  but  now  earnest  abolitionists, 
ere  lecturing  in  the  old  Commonwealth.  They  had  com- 
enced  by  addressing  female  audiences,  but  had  been  p re- 
ified upon  to  admit  listeners  of  the  other  sex,  who  could 
ldom  hear  without  going  away  convinced.  Another  cleri- 
tl  manifesto  was  deemed  necessary  to  avert  the  calamity  im- 
3uding  over  the  commonwealth  and  the  churches. 

“ We  would  call  your  attention”  (say  they)  “ to  the  importance  of  main- 
ining  that  respect  and  deference  to  the  pastoral  office  which  is 
ljoined  in  Scripture,  and  which  is  essential  to  the  best  influence  of  the 
inistry  on  you  and  your  children.  One  way  in  which  this  respect  has 
;en,  in  some  cases,  violated,  is  in  encouraging  lecturers  and  preachers  on 
rtain  topics  of  reform,  to  present  their  subjects  within  the  parochial  limits 
' settled  pastors  without  their  consent.  Your  minister  is  ordained  of 
od  to  be  your  teacher,  and  is  commanded  to  feed  that  flock  over  which 
e Holy  Ghost  hath  made  him  overseer.  If  there  are  certain  topics  on 
hich  he  does  not  preach  with  the  frequency  or  in  the  manner  that  would 
ease  you,  it  is  a violation  of  sacred  and  important  rights  to  encourage 
stranger  to  present  them.” 


432 


GEEAT  STKUGGLE  BETWEEN 


The  Pastoral  Letter  then  dilates  upon  the  appropriate  sphe 
of  woman,  and  the  danger  of  her  stepping  into  the  wror' 
place.  Quaker  women  had  long  been  accustomed  to  preac 
in  New  England,  and  occasionally  in  Congregational  meetin 
houses,  without  alarming  ecclesiastical  bodies,  but  they  we: 
now  preaching  successfully  in  favor  of  immediate  emancip 
tion,  and  against  the  prejudice  that  fed  the  Colonization  S 
ciety  ; — and  the  clergy  became  alarmed. 

When  it  is  remembered  that  “the  parochial  limits  of  settle 
pastors”  are  intended  to  cover  (if  they  do  sometimes  lack 
little  of  it)  the  entire  area  of  the  Commonwealth — every  fo< 
of  the  soil  in  it — the  modesty  of  the  demand  becomes  ; 
apparent  as  the  condition  of  a people  who  should  be  led  I 
recognize  such  “sacred  and  important  rights.”  Whatever  tl 
pastor  might  preach,  or  omit  preaching,  his  “ rights  are  vii 
lated”  if  any  one  else  is  encouraged  to  lecture  or  preach  1 Ti 
religious  “ rights”  of  the  community , if  proportionately  circun 
scribed  to  meet  this  demand,  may  be  represented  by  a cypE 
— they  utterly  vanish,  away. 

Whether  it  was  too  late  in  the  day,  or  too  early , to  set  u 
pretensions  like  these,  it  was  certainly  attempted  at  a ver 
unfortunate  mpment.  A small  portion  of  the  “ prudence”  S' 
much  commended,  would  have  withheld  the  conservativ 
clergy  from  broaching  so  exciting  a topic.  The  great  are  nc 
always  wise. 

If  a portion  of  abolitionists  have  come  to  regard  the  inst 
tutions  of  Church  and  Clergy  with  unreasonable  aversion,  th 
reader  may  now  see,  as  posterity  will  certainly  see,  the  schoc 
in  which  they  have  been  trained.  If  Christian  institutions,  i: 
the  Bible,  if  anything  pertaining  to  true  religion  falls  into  tem 
porary  disrepute,  a fearful  weight  of  responsibility  rests  on  th 
clerical  bodies  who  have  so  recklessly  and  needlessly  furnishei 
the  occasion.  It  would  be  difficult  to  fasten  upon  any  clas 
of  abolitionists  the  charge  of  having  been  disrespectful  toward 
the  church  and  the  clergy,  until  manifestations  like  these  hao 
appeared.  Had  the  pastors  manfully  discharged  their  dub 


SLAVERY  AJN\D  FREEDOM. 


433 


a reproving  the  giant  sin  of  the  country,  instead  of  waiting 
or  the  stones  to  cry  out,  they  might  have  magnified  their 
ligh  calling,  promoted  the  cause  of  religion,  delivered  their 
ountry  from  thraldom,  and  their  own  memories  from  merited 
lisgrace. 


434 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


CHAPTEE  XXXVI. 

PERSECUTIONS  OF  ABOLITIONISTS. 

Ecclesiastical  persecutions — La  Roy  Sunderland — Lewis  Tappan — E.  W.  Goodwin- 
Presbyteries  and  Church  Sessions — “ Friends” — Charles  Harriot  and  Isaac 
Hopper — Other  modes  of  persecution — Principal  victims — Benjamin  Lundy- 
William  Lloyd  Garrison — Miss  Prudence  Crandall — Dr.  Reuben  Crandall — Georj 
Storrs — Jonathan  Walker — Elijah  P.  Lovejoy — John  B.  Mahan — Alanson  Woi 
—James  E.  Burr — George  Thompson — Charles  T.  Torrey — William  L.  Chaplin- 
Messrs.  Drayton  and  Sayres. 

Neither  northern  legislative  enactments,  nor  riots,  no 
personal  assaults,  could  prove  of  much  permanent  service  i 
the  work  of  suppressing  free  discussion  and  punishing  deed 
of  mercy  to  the  poor,  without  other  and  more  permanen 
instrumentalities.  These  were  furnished  by  the  ecclesiastic;:, 
machinery  of  the  sects  at  the  North,  and  the  sanguinary  slav 
code  of  the  South.  Whenever  active  abolitionists  fell  int 
the  hands  of  either  of  these,  they  expected  no  mercy,  or  es 
pected  only  to  discover  their  mistake. 

No  persecutions  of  abolitionists  have  been  perhaps  so  vej 
atious,  so  annoying,  so  exhausting,  or,  on  the  whole,  s 
effective,  as  those  suffered  by  some  of  the  more  active  amon 
them,  in  their  church  or  ecclesiastical  relations.  Not  ths 
their  anti-slavery  principles  and  measures  were,  in  very  man 
cases,  charged  directly  against  them  as  heresies  or  crimes.  1 
was  not  commonly  the  policy  of  their  persecutors  to  pursu; 
precisely  that  course.  It  was  always  easy  to  harass  then 
with  unfounded  charges  of  disorderly  or  disorganizing  cor 
duct,  and  thus  cripple,  and  harass,  and  disgrace,  and  discoui 
age  them.  The  trials  of  La  Eoy  Sunderland,  of  Lewis  Tappai 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


485 


and  of  E.  W.  Goodwin,  were  but  specimens  of  the  persecu- 
tions of  scores  and  hundreds,  if  not  thousands,  of  less  promi- 
nent, but  equally  faithful  and  abused  men.  The  records  of 
Presbyterian  Church  Sessions  and  Presbyteries,  would  alone 
furnish  ample  materials  for  a humiliating  but  instructive 
volume  of  such  details,  even  in  a very  condensed  form. 
Similar  persecutions  have  been  encountered  all  over  the  coun- 
try in  the  walks  of  social  and  domestic  life.  The  “ gospel 
of  deliverance  to  the  captives”  has  “ not  brought  peace  upon 
the  earth,  but  a sword” — “ a man’s  foes  have  been  those  of 
his  own  household and  if  the  “ prophets”  of  emancipation 
are  looking  for  “ honor,”  it  seems  not  likely  to  come  from  those 
of  their  “ own  country  and  kindred.”  Even  those  who  are 
now  preparing  to  “ enter  into  their  labors”  have  already 
learned  the  art  and  policy  of  disparaging  them. 

The  vast  powers  wielded  by  clerical  bodies,  missionary 
boards,  conventions,  and  managers  and  committees  of  bene- 
volent societies,  have  been  exerted  to  cripple  and  crush  aboli- 
tionists who  would  persist  in  agitating  the  slave  question. 

These  ecclesiastical  annoyances  and  persecutions  have  not 
been  confined  to  the  sects  whose  general  associated  action  has 
been  found  recorded  on  the  side  of  slavery,  or  whose  recog- 
nized leaders  have  labored  to  press  the  Bible  into  its  support. 
Sects  claiming  the  reputation  of  being  decidedly  anti-slavery 
— sects  that  do  not  allow  slaveholding  among  their  members, 
nor  maintain  any  ecclesiastical  connection  with  slaveholders, 
have  opposed  the  agitation  of  the  subject  by  anti-slavery 
societies,  and  have  censured  and  even  excommunicated  their 
members  for  their  activity  in  them.  The  Hicksite  Friends, 
for  example,  in  the  City  and  State  of  New  York,  disowned 
two  of  their  most  estimable  members,  Charles  Marriot  of 
Athens,  and  Isaac  T.  Hopper  of  New  York  city,  solely  for 
that  cause.  The  only  excuse  was  the  sanctimonious  plea  that 
“ Friends”  must  not  mingle  with  “ the  world,”  nor  co-operate 
with  other  sects.  The  real  fact  was,  that  “ Friends”  in  gen- 
sral  had  so  “mingled  with  the  world”  in  its  commercial 
cupidity  and  its  political  servility,  as  to  sympathize  with 


436 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


“other  sects”  in  their  hatred  of  active  abolitionists.  Thei 
members  can  co-operate  with  their  fellow-citizens  of  othe- 
sects,  to  elect  slaveholding  and  slave-hunting  Presidents  of  the 
United  States,  without  fear  of  church  censure.  The  “ Friends’ 
in  New  England  are  extensively  and  largely  interested  in  tin 
cotton  manufacture,  and  like  most  of  that  class,  are  averse  t( 
an  agitation  which  is  offensive  tor  the  planters.  And  henc< 
an  earnest  and  active  Quaker  abolitionist  loses  caste  with  hi: 
sect. 

It  would  be  strange  if  there  were  not  many  apostacie: 
under  such  trials.  Yet  unremitting  persecution  has  provec. 
less  effective  than  a brief  season  of  it,  alternated  with  patron 
age,  and  flattery,  and  favor.  It  has  been  by  these  adroit  appli 
ances  that  the  ranks  of  reformers,  especially  among  clergy 
men  and  leading  laymen,  have  been  corrupted  and.  thinned 
There  are  many  who  withstood  manfully  the  tempest  of 
popular  fury,  and  even  the  prospeet  of  imprisonment,  whc 
have  since  fainted  under  the  sunshine  of  political  or  ecclesi 
astical  favor,  or  been  laid  asleep  by  the  fireside  of  domestic 
quiet.  But  others  have  taken  their  places.  “The  last  have 
been  first,  and  the  first  last,  for  many  are  called,  but  few  arc 
chosen.” 

We  will  now  notice  some  other  forms  of  persecution,  anc 
in  doing  this,  will  briefly  recapitulate  some  of  the  promineni 
cases,  with  the  names  of  the  victims. 

Benjamin  Lundy  was  repeatedly  assaulted  in  the  streets 
of  Baltimore,  and  once  brutally  beaten  by  Austin  Woolfolk 
a slave-trader,  before  any  of  the  modern  Anti-slavery  So- 
cieties  were  organized.  Mr.  Lundy  was  a feeble  man,  a quiet, 
unresisting  Quaker,  but  the  “peculiar  institutions”  of  South- 
ern Chivalry  provided  no  protection  for  him. 

William  Lloyd  Garrison’s  imprisonment  in  Baltimore, 
and  the  violent  assault  upon  his  person,  and  his  imprisonmenl 
in  Boston,  have  been  narrated  already. — {See  Chap.  XXXII.' 

Miss  Prudence  Crandall,  a pious  and  benevolent  young 
lady,  established  and  taught  a school  for  colored  pupils,  at 
Canterbury,  Conn.  Through  the  influence  of  leading  mem- 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


437 


bers  of  the  Colonization  Society,  an  Act  of  the  State  Legisla- 
ture against  such  schools  was  procured,  and  was  enforced  by 
the  imprisonment  of  Miss  Crandall,  in  1833.  The  school  hav- 
ing been  resumed,  was  finally  broken  up  by  lawless  violence 
in  September,  1834. 

Dr.  Reuben  Crandall  of  Westchester  county,  (N.  Y.)  a 
brother  of  Miss  Prudence  Crandall,  having  located  himself  in 
Washington  City  to  teach  botany,  was  arrested  and  thrown 
into  prison,  Aug.  11,  1835,  on  charge  of  circulating  incen- 
diary publications,  with  intent  to  excite  the  slaves  to  insur- 
rection. After  lying  in  jail  above  eight  months,  till  April 
15,  1836,  he  was  brought  to  trial  before  Judge  Cranch.  The 
evidence  against  him  only  proved  that  he  had  in  his  trunk 
some  anti-slavery  pamphlets  and  papers,  that  the  latter  were 
used  by  him  in  wrapping  up  his  botanical  specimens,  and 
that,  on  request,  he  had  lent  to  a white  citizen,  one  of  the 
pamphlets.  The  “incendiary”  matter  read  in  court  from 
these  papers,  were  articles  against  slavery,  and  in  favor  of 
the  right  of  the  free  colored  people  to  reside  in  this  country. 
The  effort  to  prove  Dr.  Crandall  a member  of  an  Anti-slavery 
Society  failed.  Yet  the  District  Attorney,  Francis  S-.  Key, 
Esq.,  a leading  advocate  and  an  officer  of  the  Colonization 
Society,  by  whose  vigilance  Dr.  Crandall  had  been  indicted 
and  arrested,  (avowing,  from  the  first,  his  determination  to 
subject  him  to  capital  punishment,)  persisted,  vehemently, 
and  in  the  use  of  the  most  inflammatory  and  approbrious 
language,  to  urge  upon  the  jury  a verdict  of  guilty.  The 
counsel  for  the  accused  urged  that  the  “incendiary”  matter 
read  in  court  did  not  exceed  in  severity  the  language  used  by 
Mr.  Jefferson,  Patrick  Henry,  and  other  Southern  gentlemen, 
including  even  Mr.  Key  himself,  when  declaiming  against 
slavery.*  He  attributed  this  excitement  and  prosecution  to 
the  rivalry  between  the  Colonization  and  Abolition  Societies. 

* It  was  a constant  ruse  with  the  orators  of  Colonizationism,  to  declaim  against 
slavery , in  order  to  enlist  and  use  up  the  energies  and  means  of  philanthropists, 
while,  in  almost  the  same  breath,  they  would  justify  slaveholders , and  denounce  the 
“ incendiary  aloliti<misU-.rr 


438 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


The  jury,  after  a short  deliberation,  returned  a verdict  of 
not  guilty*  But  the  murderous  work  of  the  prosecutors  was 
effected.  His  damp  dungeon  and  close  confinement,  while 
awaiting  the  trial,  had  fixed  upon  him  a lingering  consump- 
tion, of  which  he  died  at  Kingston,  Jamaica,  about  the  first 
of  Februaiy,  1838.  He  was  a gentleman  of  high  literary  and 
scientific  acquirements,  captivating  manners,  and  dignified  de- 
portment, a scholar,  a devoted  Christian,  and  one  of  the  purest, 
most  disinterested,  and  most  amiable  of  men.  Thus  was  a 
worthy  citizen  of  a free  state  incarcerated  and,  in  effect,  mur- 
dered, though  adjudged  innocent,  in  the  Federal  District,  on. 
the  national  hearth-stone,  under  “exclusive  jurisdiction  of 
Congress,”  for  no  fault  but  having  come  under  suspicion  of 
having  disseminated  publications  hostile  to  slavery  and  the 
Colonization  Society! 

Amos  Dresser  of  Ohio,  a young  student  in  theology, 
travelling  in  Tennessee  to  distribute  Bibles,  was  flogged 
twenty  lashes  on  his  bare  back  in  the  public  square  in  Nash- 
ville, July  25,  1835.  His  crime  was  being  a member  of  an 
Anti-slavery  Society,  and  having  some  anti-slavery  publica- 
tions in  his  trunk.  Some  church  members  assisted  in  the 
outrage. 

Geo.  Stores,  a Methodist  preacher,  and  agent  of  the  Anti- 
slavery Society,  having  accepted  an  invitation  to  address  an 
Anti-slavery  Society  in  Nortlifield,  (N.  H.)  assembled  with 
them  for  that  purpose,  December  14,  1835,  but  was  dragged 
from  his  knees,  while  at  prayer,  by  the  deputy  sheriff,  David 
Tilton,  in  virtue  of  a warrant  issued  by  Nathan  Wells,  Esq., 
Justice,  on  complaint  of  Benjamin  Rogers,  charging  Mr. 
Storrs  with  being  an  “idle  and  disorderly  person” — “a  com- 
mon railer  and  brawler” — “going  about  the  town  and  county 
and  disturbing  the  public  peace.”  On  trial  before  Judge  At- 
kinson, he  was  discharged.  But  on  the  31st  of  March,  1836, 
after  having  lectured  at  Pittsfield,  N.  H.,  Mr.  Storrs  was 


* Vide  “ Trial  of  Reuben  Crandall , M.R.,  &e.,  published  in  Washington  City, 
1836 — a pamphlet  of  48  pages. 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


439 


wrested  again  in  the  pulpit,  while  on  his  knees,  while  another 
minister,  Mr.  Curtiss,  was  offering  the  concluding  prayer.  This 
ft-as  by  authority  of  a writ  issued  by  Moses  Norris,  Jr.,  Esq. 
Se  was  tried  the  same  day,  and  sentenced  to  three  months' 
hard  labor  in  the  House  of  Correction.  He  appealed  from 
the  sentence,  and  we  find  no  further  account  of  the  pro- 
ceedings. 

These  specimens  of  riotous  demonstrations,  connected  with 
mockeries  of  legal  proceedings,  illustrate  the  nature,  design, 
and  moral  affinities  of  the  legislative  and  ecclesiastical  at- 
tempts at  gag-law,  for  which  that  precise  period  was  distin- 
guished. They  show  us  what  was  intended,  what  was  well 
nigh  accomplished,  and  what  would  have  been  the  condition 
of  liberty^  in  America  if  the  conspirators  had  succeeded. 

Capt.  Jonathan  Walker,  a citizen  of  Massachusetts,  for 
assisting  the  escape  of  a slave,  was  branded  with  a hot  iron 
in  the  hand,  the  letters  SS,  by  an  officer  of  the  United  States  ! 

Elijah  P.  Lovejoy  was  a native  of  Maine,  a graduate  of 
Waterville  College,  in  1828.  He  practiced  law  at  St.  Louis, 
Missouri,  but,  being  desirous  of  entering  the  ministry,  spent 
some  time  in  preparatory  study  at  Princeton,  N.  J.  He  was 
employed  as  an  agent  for  the  Sunday  School  Union,  and  was 
afterwards  selected  to  conduct  a religious  paper  at  St.  Louis. 
In  this  station  he  advocated  the  right  of  free  discussion  in 
opposition  to  the  persecutors  of  Dr.  Nelson.  When  a free 
colored  man  was  burnt  to  death  near  St.  Louis,  he  rebuked 
the  savage  outrage.  For  this  he  was  obliged  to  leave  the 
State,  and  located  himself  at  Alton,  Illinois,  where,  in  July, 
1837,  he  avowed  his  sentiments  as  an  abolitionist,  and  pub- 
lished a full  declaration  of  his  views  in  his  “ Alton  Observer.” 
This  raised  against  him  a storm  of  violence.  Three  several 
times  were  his  press  and  office  destroyed,  before  the  fatal 
catastrophe,  and  three  times  were  they  replaced  by  the  friends 
of  liberty  and  law.  At  a public  meeting,  early  in  Novem- 
ber, ostensibly  got  up  for  the  purpose  of  allaying  the  excite- 
ment, but  really  with  the  design  to  intimidate  him  and  crush 
the  liberty  of  the  press,  Mr.  Lovejoy  appeared,  and,  in  a 


440 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


noble  speech,  defended  his  cause  and  his  rights,  “like  Paul 
before  Festus,  or  Luther  at  the  Diet  of  Worms.” 

On  the  arrival  of  his  new  press,  it  was  lodged  in  a stone 
warehouse,  and  here  Mr.  Lovejoy  and  some  of  his  friends 
stationed  themselves,  armed,  apprehending  an  attack,  which 
took  place  the  same  night.  After  several  volleys  of  firing,  an 
attempt  was  made  to  set  fire  to  the  building.  Mr.  Lovejoy 
went  out  to  prevent  their  purpose,  and  soon  fell,  pierced  with 
three  buckshot.  His  companions  effected  their  escape.  This 
was  on  the  7th  of  November,  1837. 

Mr.  Lovejoy  left  a widow  and  children.  His  wife  had  stood 
by  him,  like  a heroine,  when  he  was  brutally  assaulted,  some 
time  previous,  at  St.  Charles.  When  the  mother  of  Lovejoy 
heard  of  his  death,  she  said,  “ It  is  well.  I had  rather  he 
should  fall  a martyr  to  his  cause  than  prove  recreant  to  his 
principles.” 

John  B.  Mahan,  on  requisition  of  Gov.  Clark,  of  Kentucky, 
was  delivered  up  by  Gov.  Yance,  of  Ohio,  as  a fugitive  from 
justice,  “going  at  large  in  the  State  of  Ohio,”  to  be  tried  on 
an  indictment  for  assisting  the  escape  of  certain  slaves. 

John  B.  Mahan  was  a citizen  of  Ohio,  a local  minister  of 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  residing  in  Sardinia,  Brown 
Co.,  Ohio,  and  had  not  been  in  Kentucky  for  nineteen  years! 
Yet  he  was  given  up  by  the  Governor  of  Ohio,  was  arrested,  at 
his  residence,  Sept.  17,  1838,  torn  from  his  family,  hurried  to 
Kentucky,  and  shut  up  in  jail,  without  allowing  him  time  to 
procure  a writ  of  habeas  corpus,  or  summon  evidence  in  his 
defense.  He  was  tried  at  the  Circuit  Court  of  Kentucky,  in 
Marion  County,  the  13th  of  November.  It  was  admitted  by 
the  Attorney  for  the  Commonwealth  that  the  prisoner  was  a 
citizen  of  Ohio,  and  not  in  Kentucky  at  the  time  of  the  alleged 
offense  ; yet  he  made  an  effort  to  procure  his  conviction.  The 
jury  returned  a verdict  of  not  guilty.  A civil  suit  against 
him,  for  damages,  was  still  left  pending,  to  be  tried  the  May 
following.  The  result  of  this  suit  we  do  not  ascertain. 

Al anso’n  Work,  James  E.  Burr,  and  George  Thompson, 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


441 


n July,  1841,  were  seized  and  imprisoned  in  Missouri,  for  at* 
empting  to  assist  the  escape  of  some  slaves. 

Alanson  Work,  a native  of  Connecticut,  about  40  years  old,, 
laving  a wife  and  four  children,  was  residing  at  the  Mission 
institute  at  Quincy,  Illinois,  for  the  sake  of  educating  his  chil- 
Iren,  and  training  them  up  for  usefulness.  James  E.  Burr 
rnd  George  Thompson  were  young  students  at  that  institute, 
ireparing  for  the  ministry. 

Quincy  is  separated  by  the  river  Mississippi  from  the  slave 
late  of  Missouri.  Having  crossed  the  river  on  an  errand  of 
nercy,  these  three  men  were  seized  and  imprisoned.  In  Sep- 
ember  they  were  tried,  convicted,  and  sentenced  to  the  Peni- 
entiary  at  Jefferson  City  for  twelve  years.  Here,  their  con- 
luct  was  such  as  to  win  for  them  many  friends,  and  to  com- 
nend  their  principles  to  the  people  of  the  surrounding  coun- 
;ry.  Their  persecutors  found  it  a matter  of  policy  to  get  rid 
if  their  presence.  Mr.  Work  was  pardoned  and  released,  Jan. 
10,  1845,  Mr.  Burr,  Jan.  80,  1846,  and  Mr.  Thompson,  June 
14,  1846.  Mr.  Thompson  was  afterwards  employed  on  a mis- 
sion to  Africa,  by  the  American  Missionary  Association.. 

Charles  Turner  Torrey  was  born  at  Scituate,  Mass-.,. 
Mov.  21, 1813.  He  was  educated  at  Yale  College,  and  entered 
she  Theological  Seminary  at  Andover  in  October,  1834,  where 
re  studied  one  year,  and  left  the  institution  on  account  of  ill- 
realth.  Completing  his  studies  afterwards,  under  private  tui- 
;ion,  he  was  licensed  to  preach  by  the  Mendon  (Mass.)  Asso- 
ciation of  Congregational  Ministers,  in  October,  1836.  In 
March,  1837,  he  was  ordained  pastor  of  a Congregational 
Church  in  Providence,  R.  I.,  and  was  married  soon  afterwards 
:o  a daughter  of  his  theological  instructor,  Hr.  Ide,  of  Medway. 
Miss  Ide  was  a grand-daughter  of  the  distinguished  theolo- 
gian, Hr.  Emmons.  Leaving  Providence,  Mr.  Torrey  preached 
x while  at  Salem,  Mass.,  in  1838,  but  in  1839  we  find  him  in 
the  less  sedentary  avocation  of  an  anti-slavery  lecturer.  He 
aad  been  an  earnest  abolitionist  from  the  beginning  of  his  min- 
istry, and  in  this  active  and  laborious  enterprise  he  was  pre- 
eminently at  home.  He  wrote  much  for  the  anti-slavery  pa,- 


442 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


pers,  during  bis  travels.  The  winter  of  1841-2  he  sper 
chiefly  at  Washington  City  as  a reporter  for  several  papers- 
and  with  a primary  and  special  view  to  the  interests  of  th 
anti-slavery  cause.  His  writings  were  vigorous,  rapid,  bole 
free,  and  discriminating.  While  at  Washington,  a Slavehold 
er’s  Convention  was  held  at  Annapolis,  Maryland,  January 
1842,  and  Mr.  Torrey  adventured  to  attend  it,  for  the  purpos 
of  reporting  the  proceedings.  But  slavery  shrinks,  instinct 
ively,  from  the  penetrating  eye  of  a freeman.  He  was  exclu 
ded  from  a seat  among  the  reporters,  afterwards  forbidden  tt 
take  notes  in  the  gallery,  and  finally  arrested  and  thrown  inti 
prison.  A few  days  afterwards,  on  a judicial  examination,  hi 
was  released  on  giving  bail  in  $500  to  “ keep  the  peace” . til 
April,  and  returned  to  his  post  at  Washington. 

In  the  autumn  of  1842,  Mr.  Torrey  became  editor  of  the 
“ Tocsin  of  Liberty,”  afterwards  the  “ Albany  Patriot.”  While! 
engaged  in  this  work  he  was  entreated  by  a fugitive  from 
slavery,  to  go  to  Virginia,  and  assist  him  bring  his  wife  ou' 
of  bondage.  He  could  not  refuse.  This  undertaking  was  a 
failure  and  they  narrowly  escaped  arrest.  It  led  Mr.  Torrey. 
however,  into  other  and  more  successful  enterprises  of  the 
same  character,  but  which,  ultimately,  cost  him  his  liberty  and 
his  life. 

His  arrest  took  place  June  24,  1844.  He  was  thrown  into 
jail  at  Baltimore.  Finding  it  certain  that  he  could  not  have 
a fair  trial,  he  made  an  unsuccessful  attempt  to  escape  from 
confinement.  His  trial  came  on  November  *29,  1844.  He 
was  convicted,  as  he  affirmed,  on  evidence  of  perjured  wit- 
nesses, who  testified  that  they  saw  what  they  did  not  see.* 
He  learned,  what  Judge  Jeremie  had  certified  before,  and  what 
has  been  verified  since,  that  in  all  trials  of  this  kind,  any  re- 
quisite amount  of  false  testimony  is  always  at  hand ! He  was 


* Of  course,  it  is  not  denied  that  Mr.  Torrey  was  instrumental  in  releasing  many 
slaves.  But  this  does  not  alter  the  fact,  that  the  witnesses  in  the  present  case  per- 
jured themselves.  As  a specimen,  one  of  them  testified  that  he  had  seen  the  prisoner 
at  the  residence  of  his  (Torrey’s)  mother,  in  Hereford  County,  Maryland ! The 
mother  of  Mr.  Torrey  died  in  Massachusetts  when  he  was  a child  ! 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


443 


evicted,  and  sentenced  to  hard  labor  in  the  penitentiary  for 
x years.  To  this  place  he  was  removed  the  30th  of  Decem- 
*er,  1844.  Great  efforts  were  made  to  procure  his  pardon, 
[is  father-in-law,  Dr.  Ide,  made  a visit  to  the  Governor  of 
[aryland,  for  the  purpose.  It  was  all  in  vain.  He  died  in 
re  penitentiary,  May  9,  1846,  of  a lingering  consumption,  the 
Sect  of  his  confinement.  Such  are  the  tender  mercies  of 
aveholders.  The  God  of  the  oppressed,  the  avenger  of  the 
•idow  and  the  fatherless,  will  remember  them.  The  murder- 
rs  of  Torrey  and  of  Lovejoy  are  alike  guilty  in  his  sight. 

The  most  fiend-like  expression  of  hatred  against  Torrey 
nd  against  the  holy  cause  in  which  he  was  enlisted,  remains 
} be  told.  On  the  arrival  of  his  remains  at  Boston,  the  res- 
lence  of  his  brother-in-law,  Mr.  Ide,  and  where  the  widow 
nd  children  of  Torrey,  with  her  parents  had  come  to  attend 
ie  funeral  solemnities,  arrangements  had  been  made,  on  leave 
uly  obtained,  to  hold  the  services  in  the  meeting-house  of 
he  Park  Street  Congregational  Church,  in  which  Mr.  Ide  was 
stated  worshiper.  A Congregational  minister,  Mr.  Love- 
oy  (brother  of  the  martyr)  was  selected  to  preach  on  the  oc- 
asion.  Mr.  Torrey  had  lived  and  died  an  orthodox  Congre- 
ational  minister  in  good  and  regular  standing,  and  no  heresy 
r misconduct  had  been  imputed  to  him  except  his  excessive 
vmpathy  for  the  poor  slave.  Dr.  Ide,  like  his  father-in-law, 
Cmmons,  who  had  died  about  six  years  previous,  was  among 
he  most  honored  Congregational  ministers  in  the  common- 
wealth. Who  could  have  believed  that  arrangements  so  ap- 
iropriate  would  have  been  broken  up,  by  a refusal  to  allow 
he  house  to  he  used  on  such  an  occasion?  But  so  it  was  ! The 
orpse  of  the  martyred  Torrey  was  denied,  what  would  not 
iave  been  denied  to  the  worst  of  malefactors — the  decencies 
f a temporary  resting-place  in  the  house  of  prayer  during  the 
ccustomed  religious  exercises  of  such  an  occasion.  This 
ingle  incident  will  suffice,  centuries  hence,  to  certify  the  po- 
ition  held  by  the  leading  religious  influences  of  the  orthodox 
longregational  sect  in  Boston,  in  the  great  struggle  for  chris- 


444 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


tian  liberty,  in  the  nineteenth  century  in  America.*  Tb 
Tremont  Temple  (Baptist)  was  opened  for  the  occasion,  an' 
the  services  appropriately  performed.  This  was  followed  b 
a public  meeting  in  Faneuil  Hall,  and  commemoration  mee 
ings  and  funeral  discourses,  all  over  the  free  states.  Froi 
across  the  water,  the  voice  of  British  Christianity,  as  reprt 
sented  by  the  Anti-Slavery  Committee  in  London,  and  attes ' 
ed  by  the  world-honored  signature  of  the  aged  CLARKSGh 
brought  expressions  of  sympathy  for  the  “ widow  and  orpha 
children”  of  Torrey,  and  admonition  to  “every  section  o 
the  professedly  Christian  Church  in  the  United  States  to  sep 
arate  itself  from  all  participation  in,  or  sanction  of  the  systenj 
of  slavery.”! 

He  died  in  the  33d  year  of  his  age.  Though  few  mei 
have  made  a deeper  impression  upon  society  in  so  brief  a life; 
his  various  powers  both  of  thought  and  of  accomplishmen 
were  little  known  and  little  developed,  in  comparison  will 
what  they  would  have  been  had  his  life  been  prolonged.  H 
was  a man  of  genius  as  well  as  of  rare  courage.  His  littL 
book  “ Home T or  the  Pilgrim’s  Faith  Revived  ” — howeve 
some  may  dislike  its  old  fashioned  Puritan  theology — it 
among  the  few  sketches  of  the  kind  that  will  live.  “ It  wil 
be  matter  of  astonishment  to  all  who  read  this  book  of  two 
hundred  and  fifty-five  pages,  that  it  should  have  been  writter 
by  a prisoner  in  twelve  days.”  This  was  in  the  interirr 
between  the  verdict  against  him  and  • the  sentence  of  tin 
Court. 

This  place  may  be  a proper  one  for  the  remark  that  while 
the  commonly  recognized  leaders  and  great  men  among  the 


* We  could  wish  that  the  same  spirit  had  not  been  witnessed  in  other  places  than 
Boston.  The  meeting-house  of  the  Richmond-Street  Congregational  Church,  iu 
Providence,  R.  I.r  of  which  Mr.  Torrey  had  been  pastor,  was  not  permitted  to  be 
opened  for  a sermon  commemorating  his  death  ! Very  few,  in  the  comparison  with 
the  whole,  was  the  number  of  Congregational  churches  in  the  cities  whose  houses 
could  be  occupied  for  such  services.  Is  it  strange  that  some  abolitionists-  connected 
with  such  churches  should  secede  from  them  ? 

t Memoir  of  the  Martyr  Torrey,  by  J.  C.  Lovejoy.  Boston:  J.  P.  Jewett  & 
Co.  1847. 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


445 


American  clergy  have  disgraced  themselves,  the  ministry, 
ae  churches,  and  the  religion  they  profess,  by  the  course 
ley  have  taken  on  the  slave  question,  and  -while  the  great 
majority  of  inferior  men  in  the  ministry  have  servilely  fol- 
)wed  in  their  wake,  adding  much  to  the  multiplied  mischiefs 
f their  unfaithfulness,  there  has  nevertheless  been  a noble 
and  of  true  Christian  ministers,  (though  few  in  comparison  with 
ie  great  body)  who  have  been  among  the  most  self-sacrificing 
nd  efficient  laborers  in  the  cause  of  freedom,  blot  only 
hould  the  more  distinguished  be  honorably  mentioned,  but 
much  greater  number  of  equally  laborious  though  more 
bseure  ministers  of  Christ,  who,  in  their  retired  places,  have 
one  what  they  eould,  though  known  only  in  their  own  nar- 
ow  circles,  or  where  they  have  sojourned  or  traveled.  They 
ave  been  driven,  for  support,  from  parish  to  parish,  some- 
imes  have  itinerated  as  lecturers,  and  sometimes  have  been 
riven  out  of  the  ministry,  as  a stated  avocation,  altogether, 
esorting  to  other  means  -of  subsistence,  and  patiently  suffer- 
ng  out  their  pilgrimage,  as  they  best  could.  The  rectified 
'ision  of  a future  age  may  recognize  in  these  11  the  salt  of 
he  earth,”  who  have  preserved  the  true  Church. 

General  "William  L.  Chaplin,  a lawyer  by  profession,  a 
lative  of  Groton,  Massachusetts,  a citizen  ef  the  State  of 
\Tew  York,  since  1837,  and  frequently  spending  the  winters 
n Washington  City,  is  too  well  known  to  the  friends  and 
he  enemies  of  American  liberty  to  require  a biographical 
ketch  in  this  volume.  As  a lecturer,  as  an  editor,  as  a re- 
>orter  of  proceedings  in  Congress,  as  a leader,  and  as  a candi- 
jate  for  office,  in  the  Liberty  party,  he  has  an  established 
eputation  among  the  public  men  of  his  times. 

Gen.  Chaplin  was  arrested,  sometime  in  August,  1850,  by 
he  police  of  Washington  City,  though  out  of  their  appropriate 
jurisdiction,  and  within  the  borders  of  Maryland.  'It  was  in 
he  night  season ; his  carriage  wheels  were  blocked,  he  was 
mocked  from  his  seat,  conveyed  back  into  the  city,  and 
hrown  into  prison,  on  the  charge  of  carrying  away  slaves. 
The  Governor  of  Maryland  also  made  a requisition  on  the 


446 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


Federal  Executive,  for  tlie  delivery  of  Chaplin,  to  he  tri 
for  an  assault  committed  in  that  State.  Having  been  bail- 
in  the  District,  in  the  sum  of  six  thousand  dollars,  he  vv 
immediately  conveyed  to  Maryland,  and  imprisoned  at  Roc 
ville,  where  he  remained  until  the  latter  part  of  Decembt 
when  he  was  released  on  the  extravagant  bail  of  ninetet 
thousand  dollars,  which  was  raised  by  his  friends  in  the  fr 
states.  After  all  this,  there  have  been  intimations  that  1 
would  be  demanded  by  the  Governor  of  Maryland  ! 

Messrs.  Drayton  and  Sayres,  citizens  “ of  the  free  North 
are  now,  (June,  1852)  incarcerated  in  Washington  City,  ft. 
the  alleged  crime  of  assisting  74  or  76  slaves  to  escape  fro 
Maryland  in  the  schooner  Pearl,  which  was  seized  in  tl 
waters  of  Maryland,  in  April,  1848.  They  were  convicte 
on  75  indictments.  The  prosecution  was  conducted  by  Frai 
cis  S.  Key,  Esq.,  who,  “ in  disregard  of  usage,”  procure 
their  indictment  for  “ stealing  slaves ,”  after  having  failed  1 
obtain  a verdict  against  them  for  larceny. — National  Era,  Me 
31,  1849. 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


447 


CHAPTER  XXXVII. 

OF  THE  ELEMENTS  AND  OCCASIONS  OF  DIVISION  AMONG 
ABOLITIONISTS. 

Jnity  in  measures  the  result  of  unity  in  principles — Complex  problem  before  Amer- 
ican Abolitionists — Their  points  of  agreement  and  of  disagreement — Natural 
variety  of  measures  and  of  organization — Change  of  views  incident  to  reformatory 
experiment — Actual  changes  in  most  abolitionists  and  of  opposite  schools — These 
changes  described — Division  naturally  followed. 

In  common  with  the  Protestant  Reformers,  and  many  other 
lamest  men  of  progress,  the  abolitionists  of  America  suffer 
;he  reproach  of  being  divided  among  themselves.  There  may 
oe  a great  fault  in  this ; but  the  fault  may  lie  in  another 
direction  than  is  commonly  supposed,  and  in  things  that 
seldom  fall  under  censure.  It  is  easy  to  say  that  reformers 
should  be  united  and  present  an  unbroken  front  to  the  com- 
mon enemy.  So  they  should.  They  should  be  “ perfectly 
joined  together  in  the  same  mind  and  judgment.”  They 
should  “all  speak  the  same  thing,”  and  do  the  same  work. 

In  other  words,  they  should  harmonize  in  their  principles 
and  their  measures.  Unless  they  do  harmonize  in  their  prin- 
ciples, they  cannot  harmonize  in  their  measures — that  is,  if 
they  are  what  all  reformers  should  be,  earnest,  honest,  con- 
sistent, conscience-controlled,  God-fearing  men.  The  harmony 
that  grows  out  of  compromises  of  principles,  is  worse  than 
useless,  in  any  moral  reform. 

Or,  if  expedients  instead  of  principles  be  proposed  as  a 
basis  of  co-operation,  the  result  will  commonly  be  a still 
greater  diversity  of  judgment.  Men’s  sense  of  right  and 
wrong  are  less  various  than  their  calculations  of  advantage  and 


448 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


disadvantage.  Anything  but  unity  comes  of  running  afte 
mere  expedients. 

It  has  been  asked  why  American  abolitionists  should  h 
distracted  by  divisions  any  more  than  British  abolitionist: 
were.  Many  answers  might  be  given,*  but  we  choose,  first 
to  demand  what  progress  was  made  by  all  that  unity  of  Brit 
ish  abolitionists  that  preceded  their  unity  in  correct  principle 
and  in  measures  growing  out  of  them  ? What  trophies  an 
to  be  shown  of  the  unity  in  which  the  principles  of  Granvilli 
Sharp  were  held  in  virtual  abeyance  by  a co-operation  witl 
the  wrong  principles  then  acted  upon  by  Wilberforce  anc. 


Clarkson  ? 

Reformers  should  all  and  always  be  agreed.  That  is  t( 
say,  the  profound  problems  of  human  nature,  of  moral  philoso 
phy,  of  theology,  and  of  ethics,  should  be  correctly  solvec 
and  acted  upon  by  them.  It  ought  to  have  been  done,  doubt 
less,  long  ago.  And  the  reforms  still  before  us  should  haw 
been  consummated  accordingly.  The  world  waits,  and  mus( 
wait,  for  reformers  to  unite  in  acting  according  to  correct 
principles,  before  the  world  can  be  reformed.  Right  measures 
grow  out  of  right  ethics.  And  all  systems  of  ethics  have, 
their  theological  foundations. 

It  is  easy  to  deride  abstractionists,  and  to  extol  practical 
business  men.  But  who  are  practical  business  men,  except 
those  who  honor  the  laws  of  nature  and  of  God,  in  the  activi- 
ties they  put  forth  ? The  steam-ship,  the  rail-car,  the  mag- 
netic telegraph — could  any  array  of  numbers,  could  any 
expenditure  of  funds  have  reached  the  results  of  these,  if  a 
compromise  requiring  a departure  from  the  laws  of  nature1 
(the  laws  of  God)  had  been  deemed  requisite,  or  had  been 
consented  to,  in  order  to  obtain  the  men,  or  the  means,  or  to 
purchase  patronage  ? 


* In  England,  the  Slave  Power  had  not  taken  entire  possession  of  the  high  places  | 
of  the  Church  and  of  the  State.  The  wide  Atlantic  separated  the  mass  of  the  slave- 
holders from  the  British  Legislature,  the  British  Cabinet,  the  British  throne,  the 
British  Church,  whether  “ established”  or  “ dissenting.”  The  plans  and  modes  of 
operation  first  agreed  upon  among  abolitionists,  were  therefore  found  adequate  toi 
overcome  opposition. 


SLAVERY  AXD  FREEDOM. 


449 

You  see  a delicate  and  complicated  machine,  a chronometer, 
out  of  order.  You  see  half  a dozen  “ reformers ” debating  the 
principle  upon  which  the  machine  is  constructed,  and  the  con- 
sequent measures  of  repair.  Will  you  exhort  them  to  unity 
of  action  in  repairing,  without  waiting  for  any  agreement  in 
the  principle  upon  which  the  action  must  proceed  ? 

Society,  the  Church,  the  State,  legislation,  jurisprudence — 
aere  are  machines  quite  as  delicate,  and  requiring  as  much 
study  as  a chronometer.  The  principle,  in  both  cases,  may 
be  very  simple.  But  it  needs  to  be  understood,  and  applied. 

When  abolitionists  first  commenced  their  labors,  they  did 
rot  know  hoAV  completely  the  Slave  Power  had  controlled, 
md  how  much  it  had  marred,  deranged,  and  subverted,  our 
vhole  social  machinery — the  Church,  the  State,  the  Constitu- 
,ion,  the  laws,  the  judiciary — everything  which  they  hoped 
md  expected  to  wield  for  the  overthrow  of  the  slave  system. 
Che  implements  of  their  warfare  were  out  of  order — the  ma- 
hinerv  did  not  ivork.  Or  rather,  it  worked  only  in  the  wrong 
lirection.  What  was  to  be  done  ? 

The  Church,  the  Ministry,  the  State,  the  Constitution, 
egislation,  jurisprudence,  religion,  law — what  are  all  these? 
Yhat  is  to  be  done  with  them  ? 

We  sought  from  them  assistance,  guidance,  light,  order,  pro- 
ection,  defense.  But  behold,  opposition,  confusion,  darkness, 
njury,  invasion!  Are  they  perverted?  or  are  they  onlj- 
loing  their  appropriate  work  ? Are  they  to  be  rescued  and 
fielded  ? or  are  they  to  be  abandoned,  repudiated,  and  over- 
hrown? 

Different  answers  would  be  likely  to  be  given  to  these  ques- 
ions,  especially  as  abolitionists  were  men  of  diverse  theolo- 
ies  and  conflicting  politics ; and  some  of  them,  perhaps,  had 
iven  to  neither  theology  nor  politics  any  very  consecutive 
ttention,  but  had  become  abolitionists  from  instinctive  sym- 
athy  and  impulse. 

Other  problems  besides  the  slave  question  might  have  a 
earing  on  the  decision.  If  the  principles  of  peace  or  non- 
esistance  were  so  held  and  embraced  by  one  class  of  aboli- 

29 


450 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


tionists  as  to  preclude  an  approving  recognition  of  any  civil, 
government  operating  by  physical  compulsion,  or  the  sane-' 
tions  of  penal  law,  a foundation  would  be  laid  for  a course  in 
respect  to  political  action,  widely  different  from  any  that  could 
consistently  or  -conscientiously  be  pursued  by  those  holding 
to  the  opposite  theory. 

Just  so  of  the  Ohurch.  If  the  idea  of  individuality  were 
carried  so  far  by  some,  as  to  suggest  the  inutility  and  mis- 
chiefs of  all  regularly  established  church  organizations,  there 
would,  of  necessity,  arise  corresponding  views  of  reformatory 
measures  in  relation  to  the  Church,  which  men  of  other  theo- 
ries could  not  reasonably  be  expected  to  patronize. 

If  the  question  of  slave  emancipation  be  considered  (as  it 
commonly  is  in  America)  one  phase  of  the  broader  question 
of  human  equality  and  inalienable  rights,  it  might  come  to 
suggest  the  question  of  woman’s  entire  equality  and  identity 
of  position  with  man,  and  thus  another  problem,  perhaps  an 
intricate  one,  might  present  itself,  in  respect  to  which  the 
friends  of  slave  emancipation  might  differ. 

That  questions  of  this  nature  had  more  or  less  to  do  with, 
divisions  among  abolitionists,  it  would  be  in  vain  to  deny.; 
Equally  plain  is  it  that  these  questions  had  a strong  inherent 
tendency  to  produce  division,  whatever  may  be  said  of  the 
possibility  of  avoiding  a rupture. 

So  far  as  abolitionists  were  agreed  in  their  principles,  so  far, 
but  no  farther,  could  they  consistently  agree  in  their  measures. 
It  is  in  vain  to  anathematize  .non-conformity,  and  to  call  if 
bigotry,  il liberality,  and  prejudice.  No  bigotry  is  more  nar- 
row and  intolerant  than  -that  which  would  enforce  a unity  of 
measures  without  a unity  in  the  principles  upon  which  they 
must  be  founded.  The  body  of  men  who  demand  that  I shall 
adopt  their  creed,  are  not  more  arrogant,  and  are  much  less 
unreasonable,  than  another  body  that  condescendingly  per- 
mits me  to  retain  my  creed , but  denounces  me  as  a bigot  or  af 
disorganizer  because  I hesitate  to  patronize  the  measures  which 
nothing  but  the  adoption  of  their  oiun  creed  could  warrant  of 
justify. 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


451 


Abolitionists  were  and  still  are  agreed  in  respect  to  the  in- 
herent criminality  of  slaveholding,  the  duty  and  safety  of 
immediate  and  unconditional  emancipation,  the  right  of  the 
slave  to  liberation  on  the  soil,  and  of  the  free  people  of  color  to 
remain  in  the  land  of  their  birth  or  of  their  choice,  in  the  full 
possession  and  exercise  of  their  equal  rights  as  men,  and  as 
American  citizens.  In  the  promulgation  of  these  sentiments, 
and  in  the  answering  of  objections  against  them,  all  abolition- 
ists could  agree  ; and  for  a time  they  found  themselves  suffi- 
ciently occupied  with  this  labor. 

But  as  assuredly  as  they  made  much  progress,  the  time 
would  soon  come — and  it  did  come — when  the  majority  of 
lbolitionists  felt  other  work  pressing  on  their  hands.  When 
v large  body  of  the  people  were  convinced  of  the  truths  abo- 
rtionists had  taught  them,  the  question  arose,  Kow  shall  they 
rest  be  led  to  put  their  principles  in  practice  ? Some  of  them 
felt  themselves  to  be,  by  the  act,  the  ordinance,  and  the  Pro- 
vidence of  God,  a part  and  parcel  of  the  State  and  Nation  in 
which  they  resided,  holding  political  power  themselves,  and 
sharers  in  the  responsibilities  thus  resting  upon  them.  These 
lad  work  to  do  in  which  those  who  held  opposite  views  of 
civil  Government  could  not  be  expected  to  co-operate — a 
work  from  which  others  had  no  right  to  deter  them,  dust  so, 
hose  who  were  members  of  organized  churches,  and  who  be- 
ieved  church  -organizations  to  be  proper  and  Eeaven-ap- 
nointed  institutions  for  religious  activity  and  culture,  found 
i work  before  them  in  which  those  of  other  and  opposite  views 
euld  not  participate,  and  could  not  be  supposed  3;o  -be  the 
test  advisers. 

It  was  not  enough  to  say  that  abolitionists,  as  individuals , 
vere  left  at  liberty  to  pursue  their  own  course  of  political  and 
cclesiastieal  action,  yet  -retaining  their  connection  -with  an 
nti-slavery  society  composed  of  men  of  all  political  and  reli- 
ious  views,  and  even  administered  and  directed  by  those 
elding  to  no  measures  -of  political  or  ecclesiastical  operation. 
Ill  this  might  be  plausible,  and  even  possible,  in  the  exercise 
f great  mutual  forbearance  and  candor.  But  it  would  still 


452 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


remain  true  that  no  mere  isolated  individual  action  without, 
co-operation  in  some  way,  could  suffice  for  those  who  intended' 
to  pursue  ecclesiastical  and  especially  political  action  against 
slavery.  Organization  among  themselves,  in  some  form, 
might  be  quite  as  important  there  as  in  the  Anti-Slavery  So- 
ciety. Those  who  thought  so,  had,  at  least,  the  right  to  act 
in  accordance  with  their  convictions.  Be  it  so,  that  their  con- 
nection with  the  Anti-Slavery  Society  might  have  been  re- 
tained. The  progress  of  the  cause  would  inevitably  require, 
in  their  view,  the  greater  part  of  their  efforts  and  means  to  be 
expended  in  some  form  of  definite  action  which  the  Anti- 
Slavery  Society,  if  confined  to  mere  “ moral  suasion ,”  (as  un- 
derstood by  many,)  could  not  be  expected  to  endorse.  The 
diminished  operations  of  such  societies,  even  without  a rup- 
ture, would  have  been  the  inevitable  result.  But,  for  this 
state  of  things,  the  leading  men  in  the  societies  might  not  be 
prepared — and  might  regard  it  as  an  evil,  to  be  counteracted 
and  opposed;  perhaps  vehemently  denounced. 

Aside  from  such  differences  of  principles,  among  abolition- 
ists, it  is  easy  to  see  that  unexpected  occurrences,  a change  of 
position,  and  habits  of  observation  and  inquiry,  might  intro- 
duce widely  different  views  of  the  policy  proper  to  be  pursued. 
And  these  different  views  might  lay  a foundation  for  a diver- 
sity of  organizations.  The  jealousy  of  centralized  power,  so 
common  among  friends  of  liberty,  would  tend  to  a similar 
result. 

The  preceding  suggestions,  it  is  believed,  will  furnish  a clue 
to  the  divisions  among  American  abolitionists.  When  they 
formed  the  American  Anti-Slavery  Society,  and  adopted  a 
Constitution  and  a Declaration  of  Sentiment,  at  Philadelphia, 
in  1838,  there  appeared  to  be  an  agreement  in  their  principles, 
and  in  their  understanding  of  the  prominent  facts  of  the  case. 
This  laid  a foundation  for  an  agreement  in  their  measures, 
and,  consequently,  for  an  unity  of  organization. 

They  were  agreed  in  their  views  of  civil  government  and  of 
its  legitimate  powers.  They  were  agreed  in  the  following  de- 
claration of  their  duty  as  citizens  : 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


453 


“ There  are  at  the  present  time  the  highest  obligations  resting  upon  the 
jeople  of  the  free  states,  to  remove  slavery,  by  moral  and  political  action, 
is  prescribed  in  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States.” 

They  appear  to  have  been  substantially  agreed  in  their  con- 
struction of  the  Federal  Constitution.  While  they  repudiated 
:he  ultra  Southern  construction,  they  nevertheless  admitted 
1 the  compromises  ” as  commonly  understood  and  conceded, 
it  that  time,  in  the  non-slaveholding  States.  They  disclaimed 
;he  idea  of  a direct  interference  of  the  Federal  Government 
;o  abolish  slavery  in  the  States,  though  they  insisted  ihat  it 
should,  in  no  ivay,  support  slavery  or  extend  it  anywhere, 
but  abolish  it  in  the  Federal  District  and  Territories,  and  in- 
terdict the  inter-state  slave  trade.  This,  they  then  thought, 
trould  secure  the  general  abolition  of  slavery,  by  State  action, 
and  with  this  they  were  content.  Into  any  close  scrutiny  of 
the  Constitution  they  had  not  gone. 

Anticipating,  as  they  did,  the  speedy  co-operation  of  the 
principal  religious  sects  in  the  free  States,  and  of  a majority 
of  one  or  both  the  great  political  parties,  they  contemplated 
no  measures  of  separation  from  either  of  them — no  political 
or  ecclesiastical  organizations  of  their  own.  Their  disclaimers 
of  any  such  intention  were  honest,  and  were  continued  for  a 
long  time.  Connected  with  this,  to  a great  extent,  was  the 
vague  notion,  so  generally  entertained,  that  a religious  and 
moral  question  was  too  sacred  to  be  mingled  with  politics. 
And  yet,  as  has  been  seen,  they  contemplated,  in  some  way, 
“political”  as  well  as  “moral  action.” 

They  seem  also  to  have  been  agreed  in  their  views  of  the 
proper  action  of  females.  Though  many  earnest  and  gifted 
ladies  were  present  at  the  sittings  of  the  Convention  at  Phila- 
delphia, when  the  Society  was  formed,  and  some  of  them  (on 
invitation)  suggested  amendments  of  the  “Declaration,”  yet 
no  one  of  them  became  members  or  officers  of  the  Convention 
or  of  the  Society.  By  common  consent,  the  separate  organi- 
zation of  Female  Anti-slavery  Societies  was  recommended, 
then,  and  for  some  time  afterwards. 

These  statements  are  made  here  for  no  other  object  than  to 


454 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


record  the  simple  facts  of  the  case,  and  to  show  the  position 
of  the  Society  at  the  beginning.  Whether  deviations  from', 
this  course  have  been  wise  or  unwise,  is  not  the  point  now  in 
hand.  But  the  fact  of  deviation,  by  somebody,  connects  it- 
self with  the  fact  of  division.  Without  a change,  no  division 
would  have  occurred. 

The  truth  is,  a very  small  portion  of  abolitionists,  if  any, 
at  the  present  time,  occupy  precisely  the  original  ground  as 
above  described.  If  any  organization  does  now  occupy  that 
ground,  in  every  particular  mentioned,  it  probably  represents: 
but  a very  small  minority  of  American  abolitionists. 

Deviations  have  taken  place;  and  the  history  of  them  is 
the  history  of  division.  The  mere  fact  of  change  criminates 
no  one,  and  the  record  of  it  should  give  no  offense. 

Some  changed  their  views  in  respect  to  the  proper  methods 
of  female  co-operation,  and  wished  to  change  their  usages  ac- 
cordingly. 

Some  changed  their  views  in  respect  to  the  practicability! 
of  obtaining  legislative  action  against  slavery,  through  the 
instrumentality  of  the  old  political  parties,  and  therefore  de- 
sired the  organization  of  a new  one. 

Some,  on  investigation,  changed  their  views  of  the  Federal 
Constitution,  and,  believing  it  to  contain  no  “guaranties”  of 
slavery,  but  a distinct  guaranty  of  free  institutions,  they  could 
no  longer  continue  to  concede  those  pro-slavery  guaranties, 
but,  on  the  other  hand,  demanded  that  the  “guaranty”  of 
Republican  State  Governments  should  be  redeemed,  and  ren- 
dered available. 

Some  changed  their  views  of  the  Constitution  in  the  op- 
posite direction — perhaps  changed  twice; — repudiating,  in 
the  first  place,  “the  compromises,”  and  holding  the  Constitu- 
tion (as  did  N.  P.  Rogers)  to  be  thoroughly  anti-slavery — and 
then  (assenting  to  the  pro-slavery  construction)  denouncing 
it,  very  consistently,  as  a “covenant  with  death,  and  an  agree- 
ment with  hell.” 

Some  changed  their  views  of  the  prospect  of  divorcing  their 
churches  and  other  ecclesiastical  bodies  from  slavery,  and 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


455 


therefore  wished  to  withdraw  from  them,  and  form  other 
ecclesiastical  organizations  better  conformed  to  their  own 
ideas  of  the  Christian  religion. 

Some  changed  their  views  in  respect  to  the  propriety  of 
any  compulsory  civil  government,  making  use  of  physical 
compulsion.  On  this  ground  they  could  not,  themselves,  con- 
scientiously vote  or  hold  office,  and  they  could  not  but  desire, 
as  earnest  men,  to  draw  other  philanthropists  into  their  own 
views  and  methods. 

Some  changed  their  views  in  respect  to  the  value  of  all  or- 
ganized Church  institutions,  (whether  pro-slavery  or  anti- 
slavery) and  the  desirableness  of  their  being  sustained  by  the 
friends  of  humanity.  It  would  be  a libel  on  such  to  insinuate 
that  their  activities  and  their  influence  would  not  correspond 
with  their  convictions. 

It  may  be  said  that  this  influence  concerning  civil  govern- 
ment and  Church  organizations,  was  not  exerted  by  them  “as 
abolitionists,”  nor  “on  the  anti-slavery  platform.”  This  state- 
ment might  be  either  conceded  or  questioned,  (as  some  do 
question  it)  but  the  main  fact,  as  before  stated,  would  remain. 
We  reproach  no  one.  We  only  record  the  facts. 

And,  finally,  a long  time  afterwards,  some  changed  their 
views  in  respect  to  the  moral  obligation  of  directing  their 
political  activities,  and  wielding  their  right  of  suffrage,  in 
such  a manner  as  to  sustain  no  statesmen  except  those  pledged 
to  the  abolition  of  slavery.  They  therefore  consented,  as  will 
be  seen,  to  a political  platform  less  rigid,  and  permitting  the 
support  of  those  who  only  promised  to  oppose  the  extension 
of  slavery. 

In  respect  to  this  last  item — perhaps  some  of  the  others — 
some  who  admit  that  they  occupy  the  ground  described,  may 
say  also  (and  say  truly)  that  they  have  not  changed.  But,  the 
majority,  doubtless,  under  each  specification,  have  changed. 

In  recording  these  general  facts,  with  the  particulars  that 
may  follow,  the  writer  understands  that  he  treads  on  delicate 
ground.  Each  party  mentioned  would,  perhaps,  wish  him  to 
modify  some  part  of  the  record — to  add  something — or  erase 


456 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


something  from  the  statement.  It  is,  perhaps,  difficult,  for 
one  who  has  been  an  earnest  actor  in  such  scenes,  to  write  the- 
history  of  them  without  some  bias.  We  claim  no  exemption 
from  such  influences,  and  can  only  promise  our  best  efforts  at 
impartiality  and  fairness,  consoling  ourselves  with  the  thought 
that  no  one  but  an  earnest  actor  would  be  likely  to  see  clearly 
all  that  is  to  be  seen.  We  must  write  as  we  see,  and  must 
see  with  our  own  eyes, — leaving  it  with  others  to  judge,  and 
to  write,  too,  if  they  shall  think  fit. 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM:. 


457 


CHAPTER  XXXVIII. 
divisions  in  1839-40. 

-ivision  in  the  Massachusetts  Anti-Slavery  Society,  iu  1839,  at  Boston— Circum- 
stances connected  with  or  preceding  it — Division  in  the  Parent  Society  in  1840,  at 
New  York — Its  attendant  circumstances  and  results — General  neutrality  of  aboli- 
tionists in  the  interior — Distinct  origin  (and  from  other  causes)  of  the  Liberty 
Party. 

A division  in  the  Massachusetts  Anti-slavery  Society  took 
•lace  at  Boston,  in  May,  1839.  The  Liberty  Party  was  regu- 
arly  organized  by  a Convention  at  Albany,  1ST.  Y.,  April  1, 
.840.  A division  in  the  American  Anti-slavery  Society,  oc- 
urred  in  New  York,  in  May,  1840. 

The  division  at  New  York  appears  to  have  been  connected, 
nore  or  less,  with  the  division  at  Boston. 

By  Mr.  Garrison  and  his  associates,  the  organization  of  the 
jiberty  Party  has  been  regarded  as  only  one  form  of  the  op- 
position made  to  their  State  and  National  Societies,  by  those 
vho  separated  from  them. 

The  writer  thinks  them  mistaken  in  the  general  fact,  (ad- 
nitting,  perhaps,  local  exceptions)' and  that  the  Liberty  Party 
,vas  projected  in  the  interior  of  the  State  of  New  York,  by 
hose  who  had  not  entered  at  all  into  the  dissentions  in  Bos- 
ton and  New  York.  "We  must  briefly  notice  the  prominent 
'acts. 

THE  DIVISION  IN  MASSACHUSETTS. 

It  was  in  Boston  that  the  Liberator  of  William  Lloyd  Gar- 
’ison  was  published — for  a season  as  the  organ  of  the  Massa- 
chusetts Anti-slavery  Society— and  afterwards  (when  com- 


458 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


plaints  were  made  of  Lis  introduction  of  other  topics,  and  < 
the  expression  of  sentiments  obnoxious  to  some  abolitionist' 
its  publication  was  resumed  in  his  own  name,  and  on  his  ow 
account.  Officially,  or  in  form,  the  difficulty  was  obviateij 
but  the  prominence  of  Mr.  Garrison,  as  an  abolitionist,  througl 
out  the  country,  and  his  official  connection  with  the  Mass: 
chusetts  Anti-slavery  Society,  appeared,  in  the  minds  of  sour 
to  identify  his  peculiar  views  with  tbe  anti-slavery  cause,  t 
its  injury.  Such  persons  were  still  annoyed  with  the  coi 
tinued  appearance,  in  the  Liberator,  of  the  views  they  deeme- 
so  objectionable.  They  conceived  that  the  Society  was  comin 
under  their  influence,  and  that  its  activities  were  in  process  o 
becoming  mis-directed  and  injurious. 

It  was  in  Boston,  therefore,  that  the  first  division  tool] 
place. 

Among  the  new  views  objected  against,  were  the  principle 
of  “ ISTon-Resistants,”  so  called,  who  had  organized  a “ Non 
Resistance  Society,”  and  established  a paper  promulgating 
their  views,  in  addition  to  the  advocacy  they  received  in  th< 
Liberator.  The  definition  of  “ non-resistance,”  as  gathered 
from  the  writings  of  its  advocates,  included,  not  merely  the 
absence  of  war,  of  military  armaments,  and  of  “ the  death] 
penalty,”  but,  likewise,  if  we  have  rightly  understood  it,  of 
all  physical  coercion  in  a way  of  punishment  by  civil  govern- 
ment ; the  absence,  consequently^,  of  all  that  is  commonly 
understood  by  the  term,  penal  law.  This  view  connected  it- 
self, then,  and  afterwards,  with  the  peculiar  theological  tenets* 
of  those  who  had,  for  a dong  time  previous,  promulgated 
similar  views  of  the  Divine  administration  here  or  here- 
after. 

Political  action,  by  voting,  even  for  the  abolition  of  slavery, 
under  a civil  government  based  on  physical  force,  could  not 
but  be  regarded  as  sinful  by  those  who  held,  consistently, 
these  new  views.  Such  was  indeed  the  fact.  The  inference 
was  not  merely  admitted,  but  avowed  and  insisted  on.  For  a 
long  time,  and  on  this  ground  alone,  did  this  peculiar  class  of 
abolitionists  decline  and  discountenance  voting,  before  they 


SLAVERY  AjStD  FREEDOM. 


459 


lised  any  objection  to  voting  on  the  ground  of  the  pro- 
; a very  character  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States — be- 
>re,  indeed,  some  of  them  seem  to  have  discovered  those  traits 
f that  document  which  have  since  become  so  palpable  and 
lanifest  to  them. 

Here,  then,  was  a division  among  the  abolitionists  of  Mas- 
achusetts,  in  fact , in  respect  to  their  measures , before  there 
■as  any  division,  in  organization.  What  some  of  them  re- 
arded  a most  solemn  Christian  duty , others  of  them  regarded 
malum  in  se — a sin  ! 

Another  question  resulting  in  division,  appears  to  have 
een  that  concerning  the  proper  position  of  females.  The 
Pastoral  Letter,”  before  mentioned,  sent  forth  by  the  Asso- 
iation  of  Congregational  Ministers  in  Massachusetts,  in  1837, 
ad  strongly  censured  the  public  lectures  of  females.  This 
reated  a re-action,  and  drew  forth  strong  and  startling  as- 
ertions  of  “woman’s  rights.”  A “clerical  appeal,”  signed 
>y  five  Congregational  pastors,  in  the  ranks  of  the  abolition- 
sts,  but  on  the  side  of  the  “Pastoral  Letter”  of  1837,  in- 
reased  greatly  the  excitement.  In  this  “clerical  appeal” 
here  was  manifested  a strong  sympathy  for  the  pro-slavery 
>ortion  of  the  clergy — a disposition  to  shelter  them  from  the 
■ensures  of  abolitionists — and  an  effort  to  sustain  them  in 
heir  claims  of  high  clerical  authority.  A very  able  reply  to 
he  “clerical  appeal”  was  promptly  issued  by  Rev.  Amos  A. 
Phelps,  of  the  same  religious  denomination,  who,  afterwards, 
n the  division,  did  not  go  with  Mr.  Garrison,  and  never  em- 
iraced  his  peculiar  views.  The  signers  of  the  “ clerical  ap- 
peal,” and  those  who  agreed  with  them,  would,  of  course, 
separate  themselves  from  Mr.  Garrison  in  the  division  that 
'ollowed.  But  the  case  of  Mr.  Phelps  shows  that  a division 
’rom  Mr.  Garrison  and  his  associates  afforded  no  certain  evi- 
lence  of  sympathy  for  the  appellants,  or  approbation  of  their 
1 appeal.” 

The  editorial  tone  of  the  Liberator,  in  the  mean  time,  was 
spirited  and  stirring.  The  assaults  of  the  “ Pastoral  Letter” 
and  of  the  “ Clerical  Appeal”  were  not  merely  parried,  in  a 


460 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


way  of  self-defense.  In  such  a warfare,  not  even  “ Non-E 
sistants”  were  to  be  restrained  from  aggressive  and  even  retal! 
atory  movements.  The  body  of  the  “ orthodox  clergy”  wit 
a few  exceptions,  were  regarded  by  them  as  the  aggressor 
and  that,  too,  in  a bad  cause.  The  most  provoking  as  well  £ 
the  most  alarming  feature  of  the  assault  was,  that  it  had  bee 
successful  in  bringing  to  its  aid  a portion  of  the  clergy  tha 
held  rank  among  abolitionists.  “ What  is  this  clerical  institr 
tion  ? Where  is  its  charter  ? What  are  its  claims  ? Am 
what  is  the  theology  that  lends  it  its  sanction  ?”  Question 
like  these  must  have  arisen.  Mr.  Garrison  was  earnest  am 
ardent.  The  distinctions  between  an  institution  and  its  per 
version — between  an  office  and  its  incumbent — between  “ or 
thodoxy”  and  the  supposed  conservators  and  expounders  oi 
orthodoxy,  were  very  intelligible  distinctions.  Mr.  Garrisor 
may  have  lacked  neither  the  discriminative  powers  nor  th( 
magnanimity  to  understand  and  admit  them.  Yet  he  maj 
not  have  been  in  the  best  mood  or  position,  at  the  moment,  tc 
perceive,  to  appreciate,  or  to  inquire  after  them.  The  first 
impulse,  if  followed,  would  naturally  be — “ Is  this  the  institu- 
tion of  the  ministry  ? Then,  away  with  it ! Is  this  ortho- 
doxy ? Let  it  fall.”  The  Liberator,  about  this  time,  abounded 
in  sneers  against  the  “ clergy” — against  “orthodoxy”  and  the 
“'orthodox.”  It  questioned  or  denied  the  obligation  of  ob- 
serving the  first  day  of  the  week,  as  the  Sabbath.  It  broached 
speculations  concerning  the  “law”  and  the  “decalogue,”  as 
contrasted  with  “ the  gospel” — which,  to  many  ears,  conveyed 
an  impression  of  speculative  antinomianism.  In  all  this, 
though  connected  ( contrasted  as  some  thought)  with  his  terribly 
“ orthodox”  denunciations  of  the  Divine  wrath  against  op- 
pressors and  their  apologists,  there  was  much  to  alarm,  per- 
plex, and  alienate  a class  of  New  England  minds  that  had, 
until  then,  been  warmly  and  affectionately  drawn  to  him. 
He  could  not  have  intended  to  repel  the  “ orthodox”  aboli- 
tionists around  him — nor  to  do  them  or  their  theology  injus- 
tice. But  his  editorials  seem  to  have  had  that  effect.  No 
protestations  that  his  “ anti-slavery  platform  was  broad  enough 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


461 


>r  men  of  all  creeds,”  served  to  satisfy  them.  They  felt  that 
iere  was  a want  of  sympathy  and  confidence  towards  those 
f their  creed — that  to  be  “ orthodox”  was  to  lie  under  suspi- 
.on  of  latent  pro-slavery  ism.*  Iii  the  mean  time,  those  of 
ther  theological  views  clustered  naturally  around  Mr.  Garri- 
m ; attracted,  in  some  cases,  it  may  be,  by  his  warfare  with 
the  orthodox,”  as  well  as  by  his  warfare  with  slavery.  From 
bout  this  time,  we  date  the  change  that  came  over  the  theo- 
)gical  sentiments  of  Mr.  Garrison,  who,  in  1880,  is  known  to 
ave  been  rigidly  “ orthodox”  himself,  having  been  educated 
1 the  sentiments  of  orthodox.  Baptists  and  being  a warm  ad- 
lirer  of  the  Puritans. f 

Differences  in  theology,  having  a bearing  on  ethics,  on  politics, 
nd  on  reformatory  .measures,  and,  especially,  theological  jeal - 
usies,  mutually  entertained,  may  therefore  be  reckoned,  to  a cer- 
ain  extent  and  degree,  an  element  of  division  among  the  aboli- 
ionists  of  Massachusetts.  We  will  not  say  that,  in  this,  either 
>arty  has  been  wholly  free  from  blame.  Yet  it  is  evident  that 
, theology  that  places  the  ballot-box  and  the  yoke  of  slavery 
n the  same  category,  could  hardly  be  expected  to  shape  anti- 
lavery  measures  for  those  who  believed  in  the  divine  institu- 
ion  of  civil  government  and  the  political  responsibilities  of 
he  citizens. 

In  April,  1839,  a new  paper  called  the  Massachusetts  Abo- 
itionist,  and  conducted  by  Elizur  Wright,  Jr.,  (formerly  Cor- 
responding Secretary  of  the  American  Anti-Slavery  Society, 
md  Editor  of  the  Anti-Slaverj^  Quarterly  Magazine,)  was  com- 
nenced  in  Boston. 

A new  State  Society,  called  the  Massachusetts  Abolition 
Society,  was  organized  in  Boston,  the  27th  of  May,  in  the 
same  year. 

The  new  paper  and  the  new  society  based  the  movement 
an  their  views  of  the  importance  of  political  action — views  not 


* We  find  Benjamin  Lundy,  a Quaker,  expressing  in  his  paper,  lys  regret  that  the 
course  of  Mr.  Garrison  tended  to  introduce  sectarian  divisions  among  abolitionists. 

t Mr.  Garrison  is  not,  and  never  has  been  a Quaker,  as  many,  at  a distance,  have 
supposed. 


462 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


held  by  the  Editor  of  the  Liberator,  and  by  other  leadin. 
members  of  the  Massachusetts  Anti-Slavery  Society.  Yet 
does  not  appear  that,  at  that  time,  the  leaders  of  the  ne1 
movement  contemplated  the  organization  of  a separate  polit 
cal  party. 

The  Old  (Massachusetts  Anti-Slavery)  Society  affirmed,  i 
a manifesto  sent  out  on  the  occasion,  that  so  lately  as  the  lOti 
of  August  previous,  the  Board  of  Managers  had  urged  politi 
cal  action,  that  fourteen  out  of  eighteen  members  of  the  Boan 
believed  in  u the  duty  of  upholding  civil  government  at  th< 
polls,”  and  that  they  doubted  whether  one-hundredth  part  oi 
the  members  of  the  Society  held  the  peculiar  views  of  Mr 
Garrison.* 

To  this,  it  was  responded  that  such  facts  furnished  a strong 
argument  against  the  tone  of  the  only  anti-slavery  paper  ir 
the  state,  seeking  and  receiving  anti-slavery  support — that,  at 
least,  so  large  a majority  of  Massachusetts  abolitionists  were 
justified,  in  establishing  a paper  that  advocated  instead  of  op- 
posing the  political  measures  they  approved : and  that  they 
were  called  upon  to  organize  an  anti-slavery  society  in  which, 
without  contention,  they  could  advocate  “ the  duty  of  uphold- 
ing civil  government”  and  likewise  of  abolishing  slavery  “at 
the  polls.” 

DIVISION  IN  THE  PARENT. SOCIETY. 

A few  days  before  the  consummation  of  this  rupture  in  Bos- 
ton, a kindred  dispute  had  been  introduced,  May  7, 1839,  into 
the  business  meeting  of  the  American  Anti-slavery  Society  in 
the  city  of  New  York.  Two  points  of  disagreement  were  pre- 
sented; the  one  related  to  the  co-operation  of  females;  the 
other  to  the  duty  of  political  action. 

A question  arose  whether  the  roll  of  the  meeting  should,  as 
on  former  occasions,  be  composed  only  of  the  names  of  men , 


* This  statement,  in  making  the  same  argument,  was  repeated  long  afterward.  In 
1S41  or  2,  it  was  alleged  that  there  were  not,prohably,  to  exceed  one  or  two  hundred 
“Non-Resistants”  in  all  New-England. 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


463 


i whether  it  should  include  also  those  of  women."  The  yeas 
:id  nays  were  taken,  from  which  it  appears  that  the  delegates 
:om  Massachusetts  gave  72  ayes  and  25  nays ; state  of  New 
ork,  45  ayes,  76  nays;  Connecticut,  14  ayes,  11  nays;  Penn- 
rlvania,  21  ayes,  7 nays;  Rhode  Island,  10  ayes,  1 nay;  other 
;ates,  18  ayes,  20  nays— Total,- 180  ayes,  140  nays.  Majority, 
favor  of  enrolling  names  of  women,  40. 

On  the  list  of  ayes  we  notice  several  prominent  names  after- 
ards  conspicuous  in  the  Liberty  party,  and  not  in  sympathy 
ith  the  distinctive  views  of  Mr.  Garrison,  viz : Alvan  Stew- 
■t,  Rev.  Joshua  Leavitt,  Gerrit  Smith,  ¥m,  L.  Chaplin,  Rev. 
jyrus  P.  Grosvenor,  A.  F.  Williams,  S.  M.  Booth,  Rev.  Otis 
hompson,  Rev.  Francis  Hawley,  Rev.  Samuel  Wells,  &c.  &c. 
everal  of  them  “ orthodox”  ministers  of  the  gospel,  f 
A resolution  was  reported,  containing  the  former  testimo- 
ies  of  the  society,  on  “ the  duty  of  political  action,”  nearly  in 
ae  language  of  the  Declaration  of  1833,  as  then  drawn  up  by 
lr.  Garrison.  Mr.  C.  C.  Burleigh  moved  an  amendment,  to  the 
ffect  that  those  who  use  the  elective  franchise  and  neglect  to 
se  it  for  the  cause  of  emancipation,  are  false  to  their  princi- 
les,  and  fail  to  do  their  duty.  The  result  was  84  votes  for 
ae  original  resolution,  and  77  against  it. 

The  annual  meeting  of  the  society  at  New  York,  in  May, 
840,  resulted  in  a division  : — the  election  of  new  officers  for 
he  Old  Society,  and  the  organization  of  the  “American  and 
"oreign  Anti-Slavery  Society;”  the  former  in  accordance  with 
he  views  of  Mr.  Garrison;  the  latter,  with  the  co-operation 
>f  Messrs.  Arthur  and  Lewis  Tappan.j; 

The  majority  of  those  in  attendance  at  the  “ business  meet- 


* On  the  one  hand,  it  was  claimed  that  the  Constitution  of  the  Society  made  no 
.iscrimination  between  males  and  females.  On  the  other,  it  was  urged  that  the  uni- 
orm  usage  indicated  the  original  intentions  of  the  society, 
t Alvan  Stewart  moved  the  appointment  of  a Committee  to  reply  to  the  protest 
led  against  the  vote,  but  the  motion  was  laid  on  the  table. 

t Mr.  Arthur  Tappan,  in  anticipation  of  the  controversy,  absented  himself  from 
he  “ business  meeting.”  He  was  re-elected  President  of  the  Old  Society,  and  de- 
lined  serving,  but  accepted  the  Presidency  of  the  newly  formed  American  and 
P oreign  Anti-Slaver.y  Society. 


464 


GBEAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


ing,”  appeared  to  have  been  from  New  England,  mostly  fro 
Massachusetts;  many  were  females  from  particular  localiti' 
where  the  peculiar  views  of  Mr.  Garrison  were  known  to  1 
prevalent.  Arrangements  had  been  made  for  the  cheap  coi 
vevance  of  the  company  by  steamboat.  The  Liberator  saic 

“ On  making  an  enumeration,  it  appeared  that  there  were  about  four  In;; 
dred  and  fifty  anti-slavery  men  and  women  in  our  company,  of  who 
about  four  hundred  were  from  Massachusetts.  Probably  one  hundred  wei 
by  other  routes." 

This  would  make  550  in  all.  The  proceedings  afterward 
showed  only  1008  recorded  votes,  from  all  in  attendance,  fror. 
all  the  States.  Of  these,  Mr.  Garrison’s  rally  of  550  woulc 
if  unanimous,  secure  a majority  of  92  without  any  vote 
from  any  of  the  other  States.  Yet  the  business  to  be  tram 
acted  was  that  of  a Society  scattered  in  all  the  free  States 
and  numbering,  perhaps,  one  or  two  hundred  thousand 
the  majority  of  whom  anticipated  nothing  of  what  was  goin{<| 
forward ; and,  if  they  had  known,  could  have  had  no  oppor 
tunity  of  attending. 

On  the  motion  to  insert  the  name  of  Abby  Kelly  on  a com 
mittee,  557  votes  were  given  in  favor,  and  451  against  tht 
appointment,  a majority  of  106.  The  women  who  came  ir 
company  with  Mr.  Garrison,  and  voted  with  him,  were  mors 
than  enough  to  secure  a majority. 

Resolutions  were  adopted  disapproving  the  Liberty  Party 
Nominating  Convention  at  Albany,  the  April  previous,  dis- 
approving of  anti-slavery  nominations  in  general,  and  depre- 
cating, in  the  same  sentence,  and  without  distinction,  the 
support  of  Harrison,  Van  Buren,  and  Birney  ; — the  latter  be- 
ing an  abolitionist  who  had  emancipated  his  slaves,  and  the 
two  former  opposers  of  the  anti-slavery  movement.  The  con- 
sistency of  this  must  be  found,  perhaps,  in  the  principle  that 
all  voting,  under  a compulsory  civil  government,  is  alike  sin- 
ful. The  pro-slavery  character  of  the  Constitution — not  yet 
discovered — was  not  alluded  to,  in  the  proceedings.* 


* The  division  gave  rise  to  new  contentions.  Mr.  Garrison  and  his  friends  com- 
plained that  the  “ Emancipator ” newspaper  (originally  established  at  great  expense 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


465 


The  historical  evidence  seems  not  quite  clear  that  the  abo- 
itionists  who  did  not  hold  themselves  bound  by  these  pro- 
eedings  were  therefore  untrue  to  the  cause  of  the  slave. 

While  these  divisions  produced  a strong  sensation  in  blew 
England,  and  in  the  sea-board  cities,  the  sound  of  them  going 
cross  the  Atlantic,  and  awakening  kindred  responses,  pro  and 
on,  from  among  the  abolitionists  of  Great  Britain,  the  blast 
ied  away,  like  a Massachusetts  North-Easter,  as  it  traveled 
westward,  spending  its  strength  by  the  time  it  had  reached 
he  valley  of  the  Mohawk,  and  was  scarcely  felt  beyond  the 
raters  of  Lake  Erie. 

There  were  reasons  for  this.  The  contention  about  women’s 
cting  in  the  Societies  was.  at  the  West,  considered  a frivo- 
ous  one.  There  were  differences  of  opinion,  but  the  ques- 
ion  would  not  have  been  pressed,  on  the  one  hand,  nor  have 
ieen  made  a ground  of  withdrawal,  on  the  other.  The  voice 
•f  women,  in  conference  and  prayer-meetings,  in  those  days 
nd  previously,  in  the  wide  west,  had  been  too  familiar  to  the 
ars  of  the  most  fastidious,  to  admit  of  their  being  greatly 
larmed. 

As  to  the  new  policy  of  not  voting,  and  the  theories  upon 
vhich  it  was  based,  the  march  of  political  anti-slavery  was 

nd  labor  by  Mr.  Tappan  and  others,  and  afterwards  transferred  by  them  without 
ompensation  to  the  Society)  was  gratuitously  transferred  again  by  the  Society  to  the 
1.  Y.  City  Anti-Slavery  Society,  a short  time  before  the  division,  and  thus  prevented 
-om  passing  into  the  hands  of  the  newly  elected  committee.  The  answer  to  this 
omplaint  was,  that  as  the  paper  did  not  support  itself,  as  the  treasury  was  empty, 
nd  individual  members  of  the  committee  had  already  assumed  heavy  liabilities, 
lere  was  no  means  of  paying  the  printer,  and  the  publication  must  have  been  sus- 
ended  but  for  the  acceptance  of  the  offer.  To  this  it  might  have  been  added  (if  it 
■as  not),  that  if  the  paper  had  passed  into  the  hands  of  the  new  committee,  it  would 
ave  been  used  to  oppose  the  sentiments  and  measures  of  those  who  had  originally 
stablished  it,  who  had  mainly  supported  it,  and  whose  subscriptions,  after  the 
ivision,  could  not,  to  any  great  extent,  have  been  retained  by  the  publishers. 
Another  complaint  was,  that  a member  of  the  old  committee  had  taken  possession 
f the  Anti-Slavery  depository  of  books,  pamphlets,  &c.,  and  refused  to  deliver 
aem  over  to  the  newly  elected  committee.  The  justification  was  that  members  of 
le  old  committee  had  become  individually  responsible  for  the  payment  of  debts 
ontracted  for  the  Society,  which  liabilities  the  new  committee  and  its  members  had 
sfused  to  assume ; and  the  proceeds  of  the  depository  would  repay  only  a part  of 
ae  amount  due  them  from  the  Societ}-.  Their  final  loss  was  above  §3,400. 

30 


466 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


too  steadily  and  too  resistlessly  on  the  advance,  in  the  interior 
of  the  country  and  at  the  far  west,  to  be  arrested  by  the  rumor' 
of  what  had  been  said  and  done  in  the  cities  of  New-York 
and  Boston. 

Apart  from  all  this,  the  abolitionists  of  the  interior,  inclu- 
ding those  of  the  far  west,  were  too  busily  at  work  in  their 
own  localities  and  in  their  own  way,  to  think  it  necessary 
that  they  should  affiliate  with  either  of  the  rival  National 
Societies,  or  be  under  the  supervision  of  either  of  them.  The 
bonds  of  national  organization  had,  indeed,  set  lightly  upon 
them  from  the  beginning.  And  with  the  progress  of  the  cause, 
and  the  consequent  increase  of  local  activity  and  effort,  those 
bonds  had  grown  looser  and  looser.  There  was  a mistake  in 
supposing  that  any  one  great  central  Committee  could  trans- 
act any  great  proportion  of  the  anti-slavery  business  to  he 
transacted  in  the  country.  A central  committee  in  London, 
with  a few  others  in  some  of  the  chief  cities,  might  suffice 
for  Great  Britain.  The  wider  territory  of  the  American  States, 
with  our  more  democratic  methods  of  procedure  and  agitation, 
could  not  be  thus  managed.  Not  only  state,  but  county,  vil- 
lage, and  township  organizations  were  needed.  The  Com- 
mittee of  the  New- York  State  Society,  at  the  central  point 
of  Utica,  could  not  effectively  reach  the  more  western  parts 
of  the  State.  A Western  Committee  had  to  be  organized. 
Not  only  so,  County  Societies  were  encouraged  by  the  two 
State  Committees  to  do  up  their  own  work  in  their  own 
way.  In  other  States,  the  same  manifestations  were  witnessed. 
In  short,  the  previous  tendencies  to  centralization  were  sub- 
siding. Abolitionists,  having  felt  the  evils  of  too  much 
centralized  power  in  the  other  National  Societies,  were  be- 
ginning to  guard  against  similar  evils,  among  themselves. 
Aside  from  any  unpleasant  rupture  in  the  National  Society, 
and  before  it  was  foreseen,  it  was  becoming  evident  that  the 
functions  of  such  a Society  must  decrease,  instead  of  expand- 
ing, with  the  progress  and  expansion  of  the  enterprise  itself 
which  was,  everywhere,  cutting  its  own  local  channels. 

Thus,  while  in  Boston,  New-York,  and  their  vicinities,  the 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


467 


great  pending  question  seemed  to  be,  wbicb  of  the  two  Na- 
tional Societies  should  superintend  the  activities  and  absorb 
the  contributions  of  American  abolitionists,  the  great  majority 
of  them,  in  the  interior,  found  themselves  in  a convenient 
position  to  withdraw  from  the  control  and  from  the  support 
of  either.  Within  a year  from  the  division  in  New- York, 
most  of  the  State  Anti-Slavery  Societies  out  of  New  England, 
declined  sustaining  the  position  of  auxiliaries  to  either  of 
the  National  Societies,  a measure  which,  it  was  believed, 
would  greatly  tend  to  discountenance  divisions.  In  the  States 
of  New-York  and  Ohio,  however,  (perhaps  in  other  States,) 
the  friends  of  Mr.  Garrison  succeeded  in  forming  State  Socie- 
ties, sometime  afterwards. 

The  neutrality  we  have  described  may  have  been  wise  or 
it  may  have  been  unwise.  It  was  assumed  at  a time  when 
the  controversy  was  little  understood  in  the  interior,  and 
when  the  changes  in  progress  had  been  but  imperfectly  de- 
veloped. 

The  fact  of  so  extensive  a neutrality  respecting  the  “ New” 
and  the  “ Old  organizations  ” belongs  to  the  record,  and 
throws  light  on  the  true  origin  of  the  Liberty  Party ; which 
could  have  had  no  important  or  general  connection  with  this 
controversy,  as  has  been  represented  and  supposed,  on  both 
sides  of  the  Atlantic.*  It  is  claimed  that  the  large  class  of 
abolitionists  who  wished  to  escape  that  contention,  have  not 
been,  as  a class,  behind  others,  in  their  uncompromising  fidel- 
ity to  the  enslaved. 


* We  mean  to  say  that  the  Liberty  party,  which  originated  in  Western  New  York, 
did  not  arise  from  a wish  to  oppose  the  “ old  organization”  or  Mr.  Garrison — nor 
from  a wish  to  support  the  “ new  organization.”  Some  individuals  in  Massachu- 
setts, who  had  encountered  Mr.  Garrison’s  theory  of  non-voting,  may  have  been  the 
more  ready  to  fall  in  with  an  organized  party.  A letter  of  E.  Wright,  Jr.,  pub- 
lished in  the  liberator , shows  this.  It  is  equally  possible  that  Mr.  Garrison’s  anti- 
pathy to  voting,  and  his  desire  to  have  other  abolitionists  come  into  his  views  of 
voting,  might  have  made  him  adverse  to  the  organization  of  such  a party,  though 
he  may  not  have  been  distinctly  conscious  of  such  a motive  himself.  We  have  never 
doubted  that  if  Mr.  Garrison  had  not  become  a “ Non-Resistant,”  lie  would  have 
been  an  early  and  zealous  leader  of  the  Liberty  party. 


468 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


CHAPTER  XXXIX. 

ORGANIZED  POLITICAL  ACTION — LIBERTY  PARTY — LIBERTY 
LEAGUE — FREE  SOIL  PARTY. 

Necessity  of  distinct  organization— Early  anticipations  of  this — Garrison,  Follen, 
Stewart — Convention  at  Albany,  July,  1839 — Nominations  in  Monroe  Co.,  N.  Y.— 
Myron  Holley — Rochester  “Freeman” — Convention  at  Arcade — Liberty  Party 
organized  at  Albany,  April  1,  1840,  and  James  G.  Birney  nominated  for  President 
— Second  Nomination,  in  1844 — Number  of  votes — Course  of  other  voting  aboli- 
tionists— What  was  accomplished  ? — Occasions  of  instability — Tendencies  to  re-ab- 
sorption— Different  views  of  its  true  policy — Nomination  of  Gerrit  Smith  by  “ the 
Liberty  League,”  and  why? — Position  taken  by  the  “ League” — Unconstitution- 
ality of  Slavery— Other  features — Nomination  (by  the  Liberty  Party)  of  John  P. 
Hale — Rise  of  the  Free  Soil  Party — Nomination  of  Mr.  Van  Buren — Buffalo  Plat- 
form— Position  of  Mr.  Van  Buren — Various  views  of  that  movement  and  of  its 
results — Hints  for  the  future — Remnant  of  the  Liberty  Party. 

The  Liberty  party  arose  from  the  fact,  that,  after  a pro- 
tracted experiment,  the  candidates  of  the  old  parties  could 
not,'  to  any  extent,  if  at  all, — however  “ questioned  ” and 
“pledged  " — be  depended  upon,  to  do  the  work  which  aboli- 
tionists demanded  of  them.  When  they  really  intended  to 
do  it,  their  party  associates  would  not  suffer  them.  It  would 
be  easy  to  prove  this,  if  we  had  room  for  the  details. 

Another  fact,  lying  behind  this,  must  not,  as  we  value  the 
impartiality  of  history,  be  withheld.  Abolitionists  themselves, 
connected  with  the  political  parties,  and  who  “ questioned 
the  candidates,’'  could  not  generally  be  weaned  from  an  undue 
bias  in  favor  of  their  political  leaders.  They  too  readily 
persuaded  themselves  that  the  candidate  of  their  own  party, 
though  but  slightly  or  ambiguously  pledged,  or  even  if  not 
pledged  at  all,  would  probably  do  more  for  the  slave,  if  elect- 
ed, than  the  candidate  of  the  opposite  party,  whatever  his 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


469 


anti-slavery  reputation  or  his  pledges  might  be.  This  delu- 
sion and  its  effects  began,  at  length,  to  afford  candidates  an 
excuse  for  not  answering  the  questions  of  abolitionists.  They 
said,  “It  will  be  of  no  use,  for  abolitionists  will  generally 
vote  for  the  candidates  of  their  respective  parties.”  The 
statement  was  exaggerated.  But  on  many  occasions  and  in 
many  localities,  there  was  enough  of  truth  in  it,  to  render 
the  “ questioning  of  the  candidates  ” a farce. 

It  Avas  hoped  that  by  the  organization  of  a distinct  political 
party,  this  delusion  might  be  dispelled,  and  abolitionists  be 
led  to  honor  their  principles  at  the  polls.  Though  a mi- 
nority, they  could  exhibit  a correct  example,  and  thus  pre- 
serve their  integrhy,  and  increase  their  moral  power. 

Mr.  Garrison  had  advocated,  sometime  previous,  the  form- 
ing of  a distinct  political  party,  though  he  was  not  now  in 
favor  of  it.  His  recommendation  is,  indeed,  the  earliest  that 
we  find  on  record.  In  his  Liberator,  in  1834,  he  advocated 
“a  Christian  party  in  politics” — Avith  particular  reference  to 
the  slave  question. 

Prof.  Charles  Follen,  sometime  after,  suggested  the  utility 
of  a new  political  party  of  democratic  progress,  of  which  one 
prominent  object  should  be  the  abolition  of  slavery.  This, 
if  we  rightly  remember,  Avas  as  early  as  1836. 

Alvan  Stewart  strongly  urged  upon  the  Executive  Com- 
mittee of  the  NeAV  York  State  Anti-Slavery  Society,  in  Feb- 
ruary, 1839,  the  organization  of  a distinct  party.  The  Com- 
mittee Avere  not  then  prepared  for  the  measure,  but  some  of 
them  saAV,  clearly,  and  had  long  seen,  the  necessity  of  strenu- 
ous efforts  to  counteract  the  partisan  tendencies  of  abolition- 
ists, by  inculcating  the  highest  principles  of  political  morality. 

At  the  annual  meeting  of  the  Society,  at  Utica,  Sept.  19- 
21,  1838,  a series  of  Resolutions,  twenty-tAvo  in  number,  had 
been  presented,  discussed,  and  adopted,  setting  forth  the  prin- 
ciples of  political  action,  and  solemnly  pledging  those  who 
adopted  them  to  vote  for  no  candidates  Avho  Avere  not  fully 
pledged  to  anti-slavery  measures.*  Though  not  designed, 


These  resolutions,  which  had  been  prepared  by  AV m.  Goodell,  were  reported  by 


470 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


at  that  time,  to  favor  distinct  anti-slavery  nominations,  nor 
expected  to  introduce  them,  these  resolutions  recognized  a! 
moral  -principle , in  voting,  which,  it  was  afterwards  found, 
could  not  be  acted  upon,  in  the  existing  state  of  the  country, 
without  a new  political  part}'.  Both  parties,  then  and  after- 
wards, were  completely  under  the  control  of  their  slavehold- 
ing members. 

A National  Anti-Slavery  Convention  was  held  at  Albany, 
commencing  July  31,  1839.  It  was  called  by  a Committee 
appointed  for  the  purpose  at  the  annual  meeting  of  the  Ame- 
rican Anti-Slavery  Society,  the  May  previous.  Its  object, 
as  specified  in  the  call,  was  “ to  discuss  the  principles  of  the 
^anti-slavery  enterprise”  and  “the  measures  suited  to  its 
accomplishment  in  the  United  States,  especially  those  which 
relate  to  the  proper  exercise  of  the  right  of  suffrage  by  citi- 
zens of  the  free  states.”  The  mode  of  political  action  against 
slavery,  including  the  question  of  a distinct  party,  was  fully 
discussed,  but  without  coming  to  any  definite  decision  by 
vote,  farther  than  to  refer  the  question  of  independent  nomi- 
nations to  the  judgment  of  abolitionists  in  their  different 
localities. 

This  suggestion  was  improved  to  sanction  some  local  nomi- 
nations in  the  State  of  New-York,  which,  with  the  discussions 
of  the  Convention,  prepared  the  way  for  further  progress. 

The  Monroe  County  Convention  for  Nominations  at  Roch- 
ester, N.  Y.,  September  28,  1839,  adopted  a series  of  Resolu- 
tions and  an  Address  prepared  by  the  late  Myron  Holly, 
which  have  been  regarded  as  laying  the  corner  stone  of  the 
Liberty  Party.  In  his  “ Rochester  Freeman ,”  commenced  in 
June  previous,  Mr.  Holley  successfully  advocated  the  policy 
of  independent  political  action,  and  came  to  be  recognized  as 
— more  than  any  other  one  person — the  founder  of  the  Liberty 
Party. 

A New-York  State  Anti-Slavery  Convention  was  held  at 


a business  committee  of  which  the  late  Myron  Holley  was  Chairman.  They  were 
eloquently  advocated  in  the  Convention  by  Gerrit  Smith,  and  extensively  circula- 
ted in  anti-slavery  papers. 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


471 


Arcade,  (then)  Genesee  County,  January  28th  and  29th, 
1840,  attended  by  Myron  Holley  and  Gerrit  Smith  ; Reuben 
Sleeper,  of  Livingston  County,  presiding.  This  Convention 
issued  a Call  for  a National  Convention  to  be  held  at  Albany, 
April  1,  1840,  “ to  discuss  the  question  of  an  independent 
nomination  of  abolition  candidates  for  the  two  highest  offices  in 
our  National  Government,  and,  if  thought  expedient,  to  make 
such  nomination,  for  the  friends  of  freedom  to  support,  at 
the  next  election.” 

The  National  Convention  at  Albany  was  accordingly  held, 
at  the  time  appointed,  Alvan  Stewart  presiding.  After  a 
full  discussion,  the  Liberty  party  was  organized,  and  James 
G.  Birney  and  Thomas  Earle  were  nominated  for  President 
and  Yice-President  of  the  United  States.  The  traveling,  at 
that  season  of  the  year,  was  exceedingly  bad,  but  delegates 
were  in  attendance  from  six  States. 

The  entire  vote  of  the  Liberty  party  at  the  Presidential 
Election,  in  the  autumn  of  1840,  amounted  to  a little  less 
than  7000.  In  1844,  the  Liberty  candidates,  James  G.  Bir- 
ney and  Thomas  Morris,  received  upwards  of  60,000  votes. 
These  were  but  a small  part  of  the  professed  abolitionists  of 
the  United  States.  A few  hundreds,  perhaps,  abstained  from 
voting,  from  conscientious  scruples,  and  other  considerations. 
But  the  great  majority  of  those  who  did  not  vote  for  the 
Liberty  candidates,  unquestionably  voted  for  the  nominees 
of  the  old  parties,  Harrison,  Van  Buren,  Polk,  and  Clay,  the 
two  latter  being  slaveholders,  and  the  two  former  openly 
opposed  to  the  measures  and  objects  of  abolitionists. 

Politicians  accustomed  to  identify  “success”  with  the  eleo- 
tion  of  their  candidates  may  ask : What  was  effected  by  the 
organization  of  the  Liberty  party?  Let  the  question  be  an- 
swered by  asking  another : What  would  have  been  the  con- 
dition of  the  anti-slavery  cause  now,  if  all  the  voting  aboli- 
tionists of  the  country  had  continued  to  vote  (as  all  except 
“Liberty”  men  did)  for  the  candidates  of  the  old  political 
parties  ? If  any  intelligent  and  candid  politician  will  say,  on 
reflection,  that  it  would  have  stood  on  as  high  a ground  as  it 


472 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


does  now,  we  have  nothing  further  to  say  to  him  on  tha 
subject. 

A more  pertinent  inquiry  would  be : What  would,  probabl} 
have  been  the  effect,  if  the  sixty  thousand  Liberty  men  wh< 
voted  for  Birney  in  1844,  had  held  firmly  that  position  ? 

But  there  is  a question  lying  back  of  this: — Why  did  the1 
not  continue  to  maintain  that  position  ? 

A number  of  particulars  might  be  adverted  to,  in  reply  t< 
that  question. 

The  old  party  attachments  of  many  who  joined  the  Libert} 
party,  were  not  broken  off.  They  were  not  steady  in  then- 
adhesion  to  the  Liberty  party.  Some  voted,  occasionally 
with  the  old  parties  to  accomplish  particular  objects.  Some 
voted  for  Mr.  Clay,  as  they  said,  “ to  keep  out  Texas.”  Some 
voted  with  the  old  party  to  procure  amendments  in  State 
Constitutions.  Some,  if  they  would  confess  the  truth,  to  se- 
cure a “protective  tariff.”  Thus,  the  Liberty  party  was 
weakened,  and  confidence  in  its  stability,  and  even  its  in- 
tegrity, was  undermined.  There  are  thousands  of  whigs  and 
democrats  who  will  affirm  that  the  reason  why  they  never 
joined  the  Liberty  party  was  because  the  vacillating  course 
of  its  members  led  them  to  anticipate  what  they  say  has  since1 
taken  place — its  general  absorption  in  a party  with  a lower 
basis — and,  finally,  in  one  or  the  other  of  the  old  parties. 
Why  should  they  quit  their  party,  when  those  who  had  done 
so,  were  evidently  on  tip-toe  for  an  opportunity  to  get  back 
into  it  ? 

The  ecclesiastical  connections  of  many  Liberty  party  men, 
must  have  exerted  a similar  influence  upon  them ; for  their 
religious  teachers,  to  a great  extent,  exerted  a political  influ- 
ence in  harmony  with  the  old  political  parties,  and  directly  in 
favor  of  their  candidates.  On  the  eve  of  Presidential  elec- 
tions, their  efforts  were  seldom  wanting.  When  a celebrated 
Doctor  of  Divinity,  on  one  occasion  of  the  kind,  inculcated 
the  Christian  duty  of  “voting  for  the  least  of  two  devils” 
that  might  be  in  nomination,  if  one  or  the  other  of  them  must 
succeed — is  it  credible  that  Liberty  men,  confiding  in  such 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


473 


packers,  would  be  likely  to  retain  their  position  ?*  It  is  diffi- 
:ult  for  any  class  of  men  to  maintain  a higher  tone  of  mo- 
■ality  in  their  political  relations  than  they  do  in  their  Churches, 
hus  exalting  their  politics  above  their  religion.  The  history 
)f  the  Liberty  party  has  shown  this.  The  little  remnant  of 
hat  party  exists,  because  its  leading  members  commonly  hold 
i corresponding  ecclesiastical  position. 

Another  cause  of  instability,  connected  with  causes  already 
nentioned,  was  the  idea  in  many  minds  that  the  Liberty  party 
,vas  to  be  available  only  on  one  subject,  and  was  pledged  to 
neutrality  on  all  other  questions,  so  that  whenever  any  other 
raportant  political  duties  were  to  be  performed,  the  Liberty 
oarty  must  be  temporarily  deserted  of  course. 

Closely  allied  to  this  was  the  idea  that  the  Liberty  party 
,vas  only  to  be  a “balance  of  power”  party,  to  be  re-absorbed 
oy  either  of  the  parties  who  should  give  promise  of  doing 
most  for  the  cause  of  freedom.  This  would  naturally  en- 
tourage an  attitude  of  unreasonable  expectancy  on  the  part 
}f  Liberty  men,  and  give  undue  importance  to  any  real  or 
ipparent  concessions  that  might  be  held  out  to  allure  them. 
In  short,  the  policy  of  “ choosing  the  least  of  two  evils,”  as 
commended  by  Dr.  Taylor  and  others,  would  be  embraced, 
and  the  stern  political  morality  that  had  originated  the  Lib- 
erty party  would  be  abandoned. 


* Edmund  Tuttle,  of  Merldan,  Conn.,  in  a Letter  to  Rev.  Dr.  Taylor,  of  New 
Haven,  propounded  this  inquiry  : 

“ Can  a Christian,  consistently  with  the  word  of  God,  cast  his  vote,  cither  for  a 
duellist,  or  for  an  oppressor  of  the  poor,  for  Chief  Magistrate  of  this  nation  ?” 

In  an  elaborate  answer,  sustaining  the  affirmative  of  the  above  question,  Dr. 
Taylor  said : 

“ To  put  a stronger  case.  Suppose  that  there  is  no  reasonable  doubt  that  one  of 
;wo  devils,  one  of  which  is  less  a devil  than  the  other,  will  be  actually  elected,  let 
:he  Christian  vote  as  he  may  ; and  that  his  vote  w'ill  therefore  be  utterly  lost  if  he 
does  not  vote  for  one  of  them  ; I think  that  an  enlightened  Christian  would  vote 
’or  the  least  devil  of  the  two.  “ Nathaniel  W.  Taylor.” 

uYale  College , October  5,  1S44.” 

The  date  and  circumstances  of  the  letter  oblige  us  to  infer  that  the  highly  com- 
* alimentary  comparison  which  it  contains  was  intended  for  the  political  benefit  of 
Henry  Clay,  as  being,  in  the  writer’s  view,  a lesser  devil  than  James  K.  Polk. 


474 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


Such  at  least  were  the  apprehensions  of  some  active  Libei  ■ 
men,  who  began,  as  early  as  1845,  to  propose  safe-guar'-: 
against  the  re-absorption  they  so  much  dreaded  and  feared. 

They  contended  that  the  Liberty  party  was  originally  c 
signed  to  be  a permanent  and  progressive  exponent  of  hum; 
rights,  and  not  a mere  temporary  expedient — that  its  found 
tions  were  accordingly  laid  in  the  first  principles  of  ch 
government — that  its  platform  was  as  broad  as  those  of  i 
publican  institutions  and  of  protecting  law — that  whatev 
the  State  and  National  Governments  ought  to  do,  the  Liber: 
party  ought  to  seek  and  'propose — that  while  the  abolition  < 
chattel  slavery  was  to  be  the  prominent,  the  paramount  me 
sure  of  the  party,  it  was  not  to  be  the  only  one.  They  quote 
the  writings  and  speeches  of  Myron  Holly  and  the  early  res- 
lutions  and  addresses  of  the  Liberty  party,  to  prove  that  sue 
were  the  views  with  which  the  Liberty  party  was  formed. 

The  most  that  could  be  said  in  reply  to  this  representatio 
was,  that  the  sentiments  quoted  were  expressed,  for  the  mo: 
part,  in  general  terms. 

To  supply,  then,  this  alleged  deficiency  in  a party  of  prt 
gress,  it  was  proposed  to  specify  some  of  the  particular  me; 
sures  which  the  principles  and  professions  of  Liberty  me, 
required  them  to  espouse,  such  as  free  trade,  gratuitous  dis 
'tribution  of  public  lands,  limitation  of  land  ownership,  th 
inalienable  homestead,  retrenchment  of  expenses,  free  suffrage 
and  the  abolition  of  all  legalized  monopolies  and  castes. 

In  further  support  of  this  policy,  it  was  urged  that  slavery 
was  only  to  be  overthrown  through  the  destruction  of  th< 
minor  monopolies  and  aristocracies  subsidized  by  and  sus1 
taining  it ; and  that  the  forces  needed  at  the  ballot  box  tc 
overthrow  slavery  must  consist,  to  a great  extent,  of  the 
masses  of  men  who  feel  that  they  have  wrongs  of  their  owe 
to  be  redressed,  and  who  could  have  no  confidence  in  a Liberty 
party  not  committed  to  universal  equality  and  impartial  justice 
to  all.  They  predicted  that  unless  this  advice  was  heeded,  the 
Liberty  party  would,  ere  long,  be  scattered  to  the  winds.  They 
contended  that,  as  civil  government  is  an  ordinance  of  God 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


475 


>r  the  protection  of  all  the  rights  of  all  men , we  have  no  right 
5 administer  it,  or  to  seek  to  administer  it,  for  any  lower  or 
artial  ends,  and  that  if  an  Anti-Slavery  Society  may  confine  its 
ttention  to  one  form  of  oppression  and  robbery,  it  does  not 
bllow  that  the  functions  of  civil  government  may  be  thus 
ircumscribed. 

LIBERTY  LEAGUE. 

A State  Convention  was  held  at  Port  Byron,  (N.  Y.)  June 
5th  and  26th,  1845,  at  which  an  address  was  presented,  em- 
racing  the  preceding  views.  It  was  not  adopted  by  the  Con- 
ention,  but  was  printed  and  circulated,  and  gained  adherents. 
iy  a number  of  Liberty  men  embracing  its  sentiments,  a nomi- 
ating  Convention  was  called,  which  was  held  at  Macedon 
jocke,  "Wayne  Co.,  1ST.  Y.,  June  8th,  9th,  and  10th,  1847 ; at 
>hich  Gerrit  Smith  and  Elihu  Burritt  were  nominated  for 
’resident  and  Vice-President  of  the  United  States.  Mr. 
lurritt  having  declined,  the  name  of  Charles  C.  Foote  was 
fterwards  placed  on  the  ticket,  by  another  Convention,  at 
lochester.  The  Macedon  Convention  sent  forth  an  address 
rhich  was  widely  circulated,  and  elicited  much  debate.  The 
lonvention  separated  itself  from  the  Liberty  party,  and  took 
he  name  of  the  Liberty  League. 

These  measures  were  adopted  in  the  confident  anticipation 
>f  the  speedy  absorption  of  the  Liberty  party  in  some  other 
organization  holding  a receding  instead  of  an  advanced  posi- 
ion,  in  respect  to  slavery  itself,  to  say  nothing  of  kindred  re- 
orms.  Unequivocal  indications  of  this,  were  believed  to  have 
.ppeared.* 

UNCONSTITUTIONALITY  OF  SLAVERY. 

It  should  be  mentioned  in  this  place  that  the  doctrine  of  the 
mconstitutionality  of  American  Slavery  had,  before  this  time, 

* Among  these  was  the  proposal  to  defer  making  a Presidential  nomination  in 
847,  leaving  it  till  the  next  year,  to  see  what  course  would  he  taken  by  ’prominent  men 
n,  the  other  parties.  It  was  commonly  understood  that  the  nomination  of  Gerrit 
mith  by  the  Macedon  Convention,  induced  a majority  of  the  National  Committee  to 
all  the  Buffalo  Convention.  A minority  still  dissented  from  that  course.  Four 
ears  previous,  there  had  been  some  similar  tendencies. 


476 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


gained  a strong  foothold  in  the  Liberty  Party,  and  was  comb 
to  be  embraced  by  many  in  the  old  political  parties.  * R', 
Samuel  J.  May,  an  abolitionist  of  the  Garrison  school,  h 
written  an  argument  to  prove  that  the  P'ederal  Constitution 
not  pro-slavery,  which  appeared  in  the  Quarterly  Anti-Slave 
Magazine  for  October,  1886  and  May,  1837.  The  late  IS 
thaniel  P.  Rogers,  Esq.-,  a lawyer  of  New  Hampshire,  an  at 
litionist  of  the  same  school,  writing  in  the  same  magazine,  f 
January,  1837,  took  the  same  ground.  He  even  challengi 
the  proof  that  slavery  had  ever  been  legalized  in  Carolin 
He  affirmed  that  a rising  of  the  slaves  would  be  no  “insurre 
tion  and  intimated  that  the  “guaranty  to  every  State  inth 
Union  of  a republican  form  of  government,”  was  a guarant 
against  slavery.  An  anonymous  writer  over  the  signature  c 
“ Seventy  Six,”  in  the  Emancipator  of  January  4,  1838,  thre 
out  hints  which  put  many  of  the  friends  of  liberty  on  the  trac 
of  further  investigation.  Alvan  Stewart  prepared  an  argt 
ment,  based  on  the  “ due  process  of  law,”  [Amendments,  art.  v. 
which  was  presented  to  the  annual  meeting  of  the  N.  Y.  Stat 
A.  S.  Society  in  September,  1837,  and  of  the  American  A.  S 
Society  in  May,  1838.  In  1844  appeared  a pamphlet  on  th< 
subject,  entitled  “Views  of  American  Constitutional  Law,  in  it: 
bearing  upon  American  Slavery,”  by  William  Goodell.*  This 
was  followed,  soon  after,  by  another,  The  Unconstitutional^) 
of  Slavery,”  by  Lysander  Spooner,  Esq.,  a gentleman  nevei 
connected  with  the  Liberty  Party.  The  subject  now  elicited1 
general  inquiry.  Discussions  and  public  debates  were  held. 
Prominent  lawyers,  of  the  old  parties,  declined  the  solicitations 
of  their  political  associates,  to  combat,  in  public  debate,  the 
new  doctrine,  declaring  that  the  printed  arguments  in  its  favor 
were  impregnable.  Others,  having  entered  the  lists,  admitted, 
afterwards,  that  they  had  been  baffled.  Promiscuous  audi- 
ences, not  distinctively  abolitionists,  having  heard  the  question 
debated,  voted,  by  strong  majorities,  the  unconstitutionally  of 
slavery.  The  doctrine  was  espoused  by  Liberty  Party  editors, 


* Upwards  of  13,000  copies  of  this  (in  two  editions)  were  soon  circulated. 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


477 


vs  affirmed  b j a State  Convention  of  tbe  Massachusetts  Li- 
b:ty  Party,  by  other  State  Conventions,  and  at  large  Liberty 
(Inventions  all  over  the  State  of  New  York,  and  at  the  West. 
Te  Liberty  Party  of  the  country,  if  remaining  in  the  field, 
al  active,  was  expected  to  have  affirmed  the  doctrine,  ere 
log,  in  its  National  Conventions.  But  most  of  its  leaders 
vre  apparently  marking  out  for  it  a course  which  would  re- 
qre  that  such  a doctrine  should  be  abandoned,  or  held  in 
ajyance.  It  was  however  made  prominent,  and  strongly  in- 
si.ed  upon  by  the  Liberty  League. 

OBJECTIONS  AGAINST  THE  LIBERTY  LEAGUE. 

Lmong  objections  against  the  Liberty  League,  one  was,  that 
itvould  divert  attention  from  the  Slave  Question  by  the  in- 
ti duction  of  other  topics.  The  call  of  the  Macedon  Conven- 
;h  had  stated  the  views  of  the  signers  in  nineteen  distinct 
3 'positions,  nearly  one  half  of  them  affirming  abstract  propo- 
sions  which  no  republican  denies,  and  some  of  the  rest  ex- 
3-ssing  sentiments  frequently  embodied  in  the  resolutions  of 
ii-slavery  Conventions.  Occasion  was  nevertheless  taken 
im  this,  to  satirize  the  League,  as  having  put  forth  a creed 
) nineteen  articles,  and  as  having  set  up  nineteen  new  mea- 
lies as  tests.*  The  truth  was,  the  number  of  its  proposed 
insures  of  government  did  not  exceed  those  often  professed 
fore  by  the  old  political  parties,  and  by  the  “Free  Soil” 
rty  since.  Yet  a party  with  so  wide  a platform  was,  in  this 
:e,  pronounced  impracticable,  and  abolitionists  were  warned 
i adhere  strictly  to  their  “ one  idea,”  as  the  only  antidote 
uinst  apostacy  from  primitive  abolitionism. 

THE  “ FREE  SOIL”  PARTY. 

n the  midst  of  these  exhortations,  the  National  Convention 
'the  Liberty  party  assembled  at  Buffalo,  October  20th,  1847. 
Frit  Smith,  still  a member  of  the  Liberty  party,  was  propo- 


Some  of  the  measures  objected  against,  have  since  been  claimed  by  other  politi- 
narties,  including  the  Free  Soil  party,  and  have  been  rapidly  gaining  public 


478 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


sed  as  a candidate  for  the  Presidency.  His  nomination  wou. 
have  secured  the  co-operation  of  the  Liberty  League,  in  hi 
support.  But  the  course  marked  out  by  the  leading  men 
that  Convention,  beforehand,  required  the  nomination  of 
different  man  from  Gerrit  Smith.  The  Liberty  party,  for  tl 
first  time,  adopted  the  policy  of  going  out  of  its  own  ranks  f< 
a presidential  candidate.  After  debating,  awhile,  the  questic 
of  nominating  at  all,  till  next  year,  they  nominated  the  Ho 
John  P.  Hale,  United  States’  Senator  from  Hew  Hampshire,  a 
“ Independent  Democrat,”  who  had  certainly  done  himsei 
honor  in  refusing  to  do  homage  to  the  slave  power,  and  wb 
had  drawn  off  a portion  of  the  “ democracy”  of  Hew  Hamj! 
shire  to  his  support.  But  he  was  not  prepared  to  advoca; 
all  the  measures  of  Liberty  party  abolitionists.  So  far  froil 
believing  in  the  unconstitutionality  of  slavery,  he  did  not  pe 
ceive  (what  Daniel  Webster*  had  long  before  affirmed)  tl 
constitutional  power  of  Congress  to  abolish  the  inter-state  slaV 
trade.  The  candidate  for  the  Vice-Presidency  was  Hot 
Liecester  King,  of  Ohio. 

But  the  nomination  of  Mr.  Hale  was  only  a temporary  ond 
and  answered  its  temporary  purpose.f  Gentlemen  active  ij 
making  it,  united  with  others,  of  other  parties,  in  callin' 
another  Convention,  which  was  held  at  Buffalo,  Aug.  9, 1841 
composed  of  the  opponents  of  slavery  extension , irrespective  o 
parties,  and  including,  of  course,  as  was  designed,  large  nurr 
bers  who  did  not  intend  to  be  committed  to  “the  one  idea”  o:' 
abolishing  slavery.  On  that  occasion  was  organized  “ th 
Free  Soil  party,”  in  which  the  Liberty  party  was  designed  t 
be  wholly  absorbed.  Martin  Van  Buren,  of  Hew  York,  and 
Charles  F.  Adams,  of  Massachusetts,  neither  of  them  recog 


* See  Quarterly  A.  S.  Mag.,  April,  1837,  p.  232. 

t “ The  Buffalo  Convention  had  to  he  summoned,  because  the  Macedon  Convention 
had  been  held,  and  had  done  precisely  what  it  did.  The  Buffalo  Convention,  when 
assembled,  had  to  nominate,  because  a secession  had  been  made  from  the  Libert  ! 
party,  a Liberty  League  organized,  and  its  presidential  nominations  made  and  an! 
nounced.” — [ Charter  Oak,  W.  H.  Burleigh,  editor,  a supporter  of  Mr.  Hale  and  Mi 
Van  Buren.] 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


479 


■zed  as  being  distinctively  “ abolitionists”  or  Liberty  party 
;en,  were  nominated  as  candidates  for  the  Presidency  and 
"ice-Presidency  of  the  United  States.  Messrs.  Hale  and  King, 
: was  expected,  withdrew  their  names,  in  consequence  or  in 
aticipation  of  this  new  nomination. 

“the  buffalo  platform.” 

The  following  resolutions,  with  the  response  of  their  Presi- 
cntial  Candidate,  define  the  “platform”  of  the  Free  Soil 
arty : 

“ Resolved , That  we,  the  people  here  assembled,  remembering  the  exam- 
li  of  our  fathers  in  the  days  of  the  first  Declaration  of  Independence, 
jtting  our  trust  in  God  for  the  triumph  of  our  cause,  and  invoking  his 
jidance  in  our  endeavors  to  advance  it,  do  now  plant  ourselves  upon  the 
rtional  Platform  of  Freedom,  in  opposition  to  the  Sectional  Platform  of 
Avery. 

Resolved , That  slavery  in  the  several  States  of  this  Union  which  recog- 
ue its  existence,  depends  upon  State  laws  alone,  which  cannot  be  repealed 
( modified  by  the  Federal  Government,  and  for  which  laws  that  Govern- 
i:nt  is  not  responsible.  We  therefore  propose  no  interference  by  Congress 
•th  slavery  within  the  limits  of  any  State. 

“ Resolved , That  the  proviso  of  Jefferson  to  prohibit  the  existence  of 
:.very  after  1800  in  all  the  Territories  of  the  United  States,  Southern  and 
jrthern ; the  votes  of  six  States  and  sixteen  delegates,  in  the  Congress 
i 1784,  for  the  proviso,  to  three  States  and  seven  delegates  against  it; 
u actual  exclusion  of  slavery  from  the  North-Western  Territory,  by  the 
1 dinance  of  1787,  unanimously  adopted  by  the  States  in  Congress  ; and 
u entire  history  of  that  period  clearly  show  that  it  was  the  settled  policy 
the  nation  not  to  extend,  nationalize,  or  encourage,  but  to  limit,  localize, 
:d  discourage  slavery  ; and  to  this  policy,  which  should  never  have  been 
iparted  from,  the  Government  ought  to  return. 

“ Resolved,  That  our  fathers  ordained  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
iates,  in  order,  among  other  great  national  objects,  to  establish  justice, 

] smote  the  general  welfare,  and  secure  the  blessings  of  liberty,  but  ex- 
j;ssly  denied  to  the  Federal  Government,  which  they  created,  all  consti- 
1 ional  power  to  deprive  any  person  of  life,  liberty,  or  property,  without 
ce  legal  process. 

Resolved,  That,  in  the  judgment  of  this  Convention,  Congress  has  no 
nre  power  to  make  a slave  than  to  make  a king  ; no  more  power  to  insti- 
’ e or  establish  slavery,  than  to  institute  or  establish  a monarchy — no  such 
jsver  can  be  found  among  those  specifically  conferred  by  the  Constitution, 

( derived  by  just  implication  from  them. 


480 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


“ Resolved,  That  it  is  the  duty  of  the  Federal  Government  to  relieve  itse 
from  all  responsibility  for  the  existence  or  continuance  of  slavery,  wherevi'. 
that  Government  possesses  constitutional  authority  to  legislate  on  that  sul 
ject,  and  is  thus  responsible  for  its  existence. 

“ Resolved,  That  the  true,  and,  in  the  judgment  of  this  Convention,  th 
only  safe  means  of  preventing  the  extension  of  slavery  into  territory  no' 
free,  is  to  prohibit  its  existence  in  all  such  territory  by  an  act  of  Congres: 

“ Resolved,  That  we  accept  the  issue  which  the  slave  power  has  force 
upon  us,  and  to  their  demand  for  more  slave  States,  and  more  slave  Terr 
tories,  our  calm  but  final  answer  is,  No  more  slave  States,  and  no  more  slav 
Territory.  Let  the  soil  of  our  extensive  domains  be  ever  kept  free,  fc 
the  hardy  pioneers  of  our  own  land,  and  the  oppressed  and  banished  o 
other  lands,  seeking  homes  of  comfort  and  fields  of  enterprise  in  the  nev 
world.” 

These  were  followed  by  resolutions  in  favor  of  cheap  post 
age,  retrenchment,  abolition  of  unnecessary  offices,  election 
by  the  people,  river  and  harbor  improvements,  free  grant  oi 
public  lands,  payment  of  public  debts,  and  revenue  tarifl 
Here  were  seven  distinct  objects  enumerated,  besides  the  non 
extension  of  slavery. 

It  may  be  asked,  how  much  was  intended  to  be  included  ii 
the  sixth  of  these  resolutions.  It  will  not  probably  be  claimed 
that  this  Convention  intended  to  set  up  a higher  standard  thai 
that  of  the  Liberty  Party  Convention  that  nominated  Mr 
Hale,  who  was  not  prepared  for  the  abolition,  by  Congress1 
of  the  inter-state  slave  trade.  The  following  extracts  fron 
the  Letter  of  Mr.  Van  Buren,  accepting  the  nomination,  wil’ 
show  his  understanding  of  the  position  of  the  Convention  and 
the  new  party : 

“ I have  examined  and  considered  the  platform  adopted  by  the  Buffalo 
Convention,  as  defining  the  political  creed  of  the  ‘ Free  Democracy,’  with 
the  attention  due  to  the  grave  subjects  under  which  it  is  presented.  Il 
breathes  the  right  spirit,  and  presents  a political  chart  which,  with  the 
explanations  I am  about  to  make,  I can,  in  good  faith,  adopt  and  sustain. 

“ In  regard  to  the  chief  topics  of  the  resolutions,  it  is  not  to  be  doubted, 
that  the  present  movement  of  the  public  mind  in  the  non-slaveholding  States, 
upon  the  subject  of  slavery,  is  caused  mainly  by  an  earnest  desire  to  uphold 
and  enforce  the  policy  in  regard  to  it,  established  by  the  founders  of  the 
Republic.  That  policy,  in  addition  to  the  prospective  prohibition  of  the 
foreign  slave  trade,  was — 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


481 


“ 1st.  Adequate,  efficient,  and  certain  security  against  the  extension  of 
avery  into  territories  where  it  did  not  practically  exist. 

“ 2d.  That,  in  the  language  of  your  own  condensed  and  excellent  resolu- 
on,  ‘ Slavery,  in  the  several  States  of  the  Union  which  recognize  its  exist- 
nce,  should  depend  upon  State  laws,  which  cannot  be  repealed  or  modified 
y the  Federal  Government;’  and — 

“3d.  A SPIRIT  OF  CONSIDERATE  FORBEARANCE  TOWARDS  THE  INSTITU- 
ION,  IN  LOCALITIES  WHERE  IT  WAS  PLACED  UNDER  THE  CONTROL  OF  CoN- 
RESS.”  ******** 

“ The  sixth  resolution  embraces  the  subject  of  slavery  in  the  District  of 
Columbia ; and  I observe  in  it  a generality  of  expression,  in  respect  to  the 
me  when,  and  the  circumstances  under  which,  it  was  the  opinion  of  the 
lonvention  that  it  should  be  abolished,  which  has  not  been  usual  on  the 
art  of  the  friends  of  immediate  action.  Most  reflecting  and  philanthropic 
linds  live  in  the  hope,  that  they  will  one  day  see  slavery  abolished,  not 
nly  in  that  District,  but  in  the  States  also,  in* the  latter  through  the  agency 
f the  State  Governments,  to  whom  the  Constitution  wisely  leaves  exclu- 
ive  power  in  the  matter,  and  in  the  former  by  Congress.  I may  be  mis- 
iken,  but  I think  I see  in  the  guarded  language  of  the  resolution,  evidence 
f an  apprehension,  on  the  part  of  the  Convention,  that  a difference  in 
pinion,  to  some  extent  at  least,  existed  among  its  members,  upon  the  point 
eferred  to,  and  of  an  enlightened  and  truly  patriotic  resolve,  not  to  suffer 
hat  circumstance,  if  it  existed,  to  weaken  the  moral  power  of  their  una- 
imity  on  the  great  question  which  had  brought  them  together.” 

It  is  not  known  that  the  leading  members  of  the  Conven- 
ion  that  nominated  Mr.  Yan  Buren,  ever  complained  that 
te  had  misunderstood  their  position.  They  certainly  did  not 
withdraw  from  him  their  support. 

Here,  then,  was  a platform  containing  as  many  collateral 
neasures  as  had  been  proposed  by  the  Liberty  League,  but 
imitting  “ the  one  idea ” of  a direct  abolition  of  slavery.  Yet 
t was  eagerly  embraced  by  many  who  had  scarcely  ceases 
’rom  protesting  against  the  introduction  of  other  topics  by  the 
liberty  League,  in  connection  with  the  highest  standard  of 
mti-slavery  action. 

The  position  of  Mr.  Yan  Buren,  and  of  the  party  that 
elected  him  as  their  chief  representative,  may  be  further 
een  from  the  reference  he  made  to  his  course  during  his  Pre- 
sidency in  respect  to  the  slave  question,  in  his  widely  circu- 

31 


482 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


lated  letter  of  June  20th,  1848,  a few  weeks  previous  to  hi 
nomination  at  Buffalo : 

“ But  deeply  penetrated  by  the  conviction  that  slavery  was  the  only  sub 
ject  which  could  endanger  our  blessed  Union,  I was  determined  that  rr 
effort  on  my  part,  within  the  pale  of  the  Constitution,  should  be  wanting  ti 

SUSTAIN  ITS  COMPROMISES  AS  THEY  WERE  THEN  UNDERSTOOD,  AND  IT  IS  NOV 
A SOURCE  OF  CONSOLATION  TO  ME  THAT  I PURSUED  THE  COURSE  I THEI 
ADOPTED.” 

The  manner  in  which  Mr.  Van  Buren  sustained  the  “com- 
promises of  the  Constitution”  when  he  was  President,  the 
reader  has  already  seen. 

The  enemies  of  the  Liberty  party,  whigs,  democrats,  “ non- 
resistants,”  and  “ Garrison  abolitionists,”  rejoiced  greatly  at 
its  supposed  “ death  and  burial.” 

REMNANT  OF  THE  LIBERTY  PARTY. 

But  a little  remnant  remained.  Besides  those  who  had 
organized  the  Liberty  League,  there  were  a few  who  were 
inclined  to  favor  their  views,  and  there  were  others  who  pre- 
ferred to  support  Gerrit  Smith  rather  than  John  P.  Hale,  or 
any  candidate  that  would  be  likely  to  be  substituted  for  him. 
These , rallied  as  “ the  Liberty  Party,”  and  in  Convention  at 
Buffalo,  June  15th,  1848,  concurred  with  the  Liberty  League 
in  nominating  their  candidates.  At  a subsequent  Convention 
at  Canastota,  Sept.  28th,  they  adopted  the  documents  defining 
the  platform  of  the  Liberty  League,  which  has  not,  since  that 
time,  maintained  a separate  organization. 

RESULTS  AND  POSITION  OF  THE  “FREE  SOIL  PARTY.” 

After  an  experiment  of  three  years  and  a half,  from  the 
time  of  its  organization  at  Buffalo,  not  a few  members  of  the 
Free  Soil  party  found  themselves  in  the  position  described  in 
the  following  extract,  which  appeared  in  the  National  Era  of 
March  4,  1852 : 

“I  confess  myself  disappointed  in  the  results  of  the  Buffalo  Convention. 
To  one  at  the  time  it  did  seem  that  the  people  had  become  thoroughly 
awake,  both  to  their  rights  and  their  duties,  and  that  party  attachments  are 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


483 


o longer  to  prevent  a manly,  fearless  assertion  of  the  rights  of  the  free 
vTorth  to  take  the  control  of  the  Government,  and  to  wield  it  in  favor  of 
iberty. 

“ While  I believe  that  that  demonstration  did  exert  a salutary  influence 
m the  then  pending  election,  I am  constrained  to  admit  that  the  high  hopes 
hen  formed  have  faded  away,  and  left  the  sad  conviction  that  the  people  of 
he  free  States  are  yet  to  learn  lessons  of  deep  humiliation,  before  they  will 
ise  to  the  true  position  and  dignity  of  freemen.” — Extract  of  a Letter  from 
1.  A.  Guthrie  to  the  Free  Soil  Convention  of  Ohio. 

Others  were  found  who  freely  expressed  their  regrets  that 
he  platform  of  direct  abolition  should  have  been  virtually 
jxchanged  for  that  of  non-extension. 

The  editor  of  the  National  Era,  in  commenting  upon  the 
etter  of  Mr.  Guthrie,  thus  sums  up  the  result,  as  he  under- 
stands it,  of  the  Free  Soil  organization  : 

“We  did  not  succeed  in  obtaining  a positive  act  from  Congress  prohib- 
ting  slavery  in  the  Territories,  but  the  power  of  the  movement  we  re- 
presented was  such  as  to  constrain  the  new  administration  to  countenance 
neasures  favorable  to  our  views,  such  as  to  weaken  the  confidence  of  the 
slaveholders  in  their  own  doctrines  respecting  the  title  to  their  slaves  in  free 
territory,  such  as  to  impregnate  the  tide  of  emigration  to  California  with 
the  anti-slavery  spirit,  thereby  inducing  the  formation  of  a non-slaveholding 
State  on  the  Pacific,  by  which  our  entire  Western  seaboard  was  consecrated 
to  Freedom. 

“ Among  the  other  results  attributable  to  this  movement,  directly  or  in- 
directly, are  the  repeal  of  the  Black  Laws  of  Ohio  ; the  election  of  from 
ten  to  fifteen  members  of  the  House  for  two  successive  Congresses,  acting 
independently  of  organizations  when  controlled  by  slavery  ; the  election  of 
Messrs.  Chase  and  Sumner  to  the  Senate  of  the  United  States;  the  control 
of  Wisconsin,  Ohio,  New  York,  and  Massachusetts,  by  coalitions,  not  to  be 
coerced  into  submission  to  the  dictates  of  the  Slave  Power ; distraction  in 
the  old  political  organizations  always  subservient  to  slavery,  which  thus  far 
no  efforts  have  succeeded  in  allaying  ; a more  general  discussion  of  ques- 
tions of  slavery,  in  Congress  and  out,  than  had  ever  taken  place  before  ; 
and  such  a state  of  the  public  mind  as  to  have  checked,  if  not  extinguished, 
the  project  of  Cuban  annexation.  Nor  must  we  forget  that  it  was  under 
the  pressure  of  this  Buffalo  Convention  that  the  Oregon  Bill,  with  its  clause 
prohibiting  slavery,  was  carried  through  Congress.” 

This,  then,  it  may  be  presumed,  is  the  most  favorable  ac- 
count that  can  be  given  of  the  results  of  the  Buffalo  Conven- 


484 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


tion  of  August  9,  1848,  and  of  the  nomination  of  Mr.  Van 
Buren. 

On  the  other  hand,  there  are  many  who  think  all  the  favor- 
able results  above-mentioned,  and  many  more  now  unrealized, 
would  -have  been  secured  by  taking  bigber  instead  of  lower 
ground  on  tbe  slave  question.  Aside  from  tbe  principle  in- 
volved, they  maintain  that  since  all  congressional  contests  on 
tbe  subject  result  uniformly  in  compromise,  it  was  bad  policy 
to  set  tbe  claims  of  liberty  on  tbe  lowest  possible  ground,  that 
of  the  non-extension  of  slavery.  They  judge  that  a vigorous 
and  bold  push  for  the  abolition  of  slavery  (at  least  where  it  is 
confessedly  under  jurisdiction  of  Congress)  would  have  cut 
out  other  work  for  the  pro-slavery  party  than  opposition  to 
tbe  admission  of  California  as  a free  State ! They  have  no 
doubt  that  its  prompt  admission,  together  with  tbe  adoption 
of  tbe  Wilmot  proviso,  would  have  been  eagerly  proposed  as 
a “compromise”  to  stave  off  the  abolition  of  slavery  in  the 
Federal  District,  and  tbe  prohibition  of  tbe  inter-state  slave 
trade — to  say  nothing  of  tbe  still  higher  ground  of  tbe  aboli- 
tion of  slavery  in  tbe  States.  Instead  of  acting  merely  on 
tbe  defensive,  and  on  their  own  territory,  they  would  push 
the  Avar  into  tbe  citadel  of  the  enemy.  If  “compromises” 
must  needs  be  submitted  to,  they  think  a position  should  be 
chosen  that  should  not  inevitably  result  in  placing  all  the 
concessions  on  tbe  wrong  side.  More  than  all  this,  they  be- 
lieve in  the  moral  obligation  of  a,  practical  conformity  to  all  ascer- 
tained truth , believing  that  tbe  God  of  truth  can  control  u con- 
sequences” and  bring  to  pass  results  which  no  human  sagacity 
could  calculate  or  foresee  beforehand.  Though  they  were 
glad  to  see  whigs  and  democrats  leave  their  old  parties,  to 
take  the  advanced  ground  of  the  Free  Soil  party,  they  deeply 
deplored  that  Liberty  party  men,  especially  those  who  be- 
lieved in  the  unconstitutionality  of  slavery,  should  have 
abandoned  the  ground  indicated  by  their  own  convictions,  for 
the  sake  of  co-operation  with  those  who  held  lower  views. 

It  is  questioned  by  many  others,  whether  the  organization 
of  the  Free  Soil  party  produced  all  the  results  attributed  to  it 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


485 


in  the  above  extract  from  the  National  Era.  The  questions 
that,  of  necessity,  came  before  Congress,  produced  great  ex- 
citement and  drew  forth  earnest  debate.  The  position  of  the 
ultra  Southern  members  rendered  it  inevitable.  And  many 
members  of  Congress,  not  belonging  to  the  Free  Soil  party, 
were  quite  as  efficient  in  their  advocacy  of  Northern  interests 
as  some  who  did.  Among  these  are  to  be  reckoned  such  men 
as  William  IT.  Seward,  whig  Senator  from  New  York,  and 
several  others,  though  their  party  connections  naturally  tended 
to  cripple  them. 

It  should  be  noticed  that  some  statesmen  in  Congress  and 
the  State  Legislatures,  who  were  elected  as  Free  Soil  men,  or 
by  help  of  the  votes  of  that  party,  have  found  their  way  out 
of  the  Free  Soil  party  into  one  or  the  other  of  the  old  parties. 
Among  these  are  some  who  were  formerly  in  the  Liberty 
party,  and  who  exerted  themselves  most  strenuously,  first,  in 
favor  of  the  “one  idea”  policy  in  opposition  to  the  Liberty 
League  ; and,  soon  afterwards,  to  merge  the  Liberty  party  in 
the  Free  Soil  party. 

In  the  State  of  New-York,  where  the  “Buffalo  platform” 
was  erected,  it  seems  to  have  fallen  down  entirely.  The  Free 
Soil  part}'  is  extinct  in  that  State,  having  been  absorbed  by 
the  old  Democratic  party,  and  that  too,  upon  a basis  which 
unites  the  “Old  Hunkers”  and  the  “Barnburners,” — the 
pro-slavery  and  the  anti-slavery  sections  of  the  party.  It  is 
not  seen  that  that  party,  since  the  re-absorption,  is  at  all  in 
advance  of  the  Whig  party,  on  the  slave  question.  The 
friends  of  Mr.  Seward,  in  the  Whig  party,  appear  to  be  rather 
in  advance  of  them. 

In  Massachusetts  and  in  Ohio,  where  there  are  yet  some 
signs  of  life  among  “Free  Soilers,”  their  activity  chiefly  con- 
sists in  temporary  and  local  coalitions  with  one  or  the  other 
of  the  old  parties,  or  with  portions  of  them,  as  circumstances 
may  seem  to  require.  It  has,  in  fact,  become  a question, 
whether,  as  a national  party,  the  “ Free  Soil  party,”  as  organ- 
ized at  Buffalo,  in  1848,  may  be  said  to  exist 

Party  ties,  even  in  the  old  parties,  are,  to  an  increasing  ex- 


486 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


tent,  held  loosely.  At  one  time,  there  were  indications  of  : 
division  in  both  of  them,  by  the  organization  of  a new  “ Union- 
or  Slavery  party,  to  maintain  the  fugitive  slave  bill. 

On  one  point,  the  Free  Soil  party,  if  it  exists,  is  now  ii 
unity  with  the  remnant  of  the  Liberty  party,  and  the  plat 
form  of  the  late  Liberty  League.  It  repudiates  the  “ om 
idea”  policy,  insisted  upon,  in  1847-8.*  This  bone  of  con 
tention  is  now  removed.  If  the  members  of  the  Free  Soi 
party  perceive  that  the  time  (if  there  ever  was  one)  for  a ral 
ly  on  the  low  ground  of  the  “ Buffalo  platform  ” has  nov 
passed  away — if  they  feel  that  the  name  “ Free  Soil  ” — indi. 
eating  non-extension,  is  too  narrow  to  describe  their  presen 
position,  as  friends  of  liberty,  they  would  do  well  to  studj 
the  constitutional  question,  and  the  measures  of  politica 
economy  that  harmonize  with  the  principle  of  equal  rights 
Such  a course,  on  their  part,  might  result  in  a re-union  oi 
all  the  friends  of  political  action  against  slavery. 


* See  editorial  in  National  Era , March  4,  1852. 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


487 


CHAPTER  XI,. 

ANTI-SLAVERY  CHURCH  AGITATION — NEW  ANTI-SLAVERY 
CHURCHES  AND  MISSIONARY  BODIES. 

Consideration,  among  abolitionists,  of  their  Church  relations — Consultations  at 
Albany,  in  J uly,  1S39 — Previous  “ Anti-Slavery  Conference  and  Prayer-  Meetings” 
— “ Christian  Anti-Slavery  Conventions,”  1S40  and  omvard — Paper  devoted  to 
the  subject — Organization  of  Independent  Anti-Slavery  Churches — “ Wesleyan 
Church,”  a secession  from  the  Meth.  E.  Church — “Free  Presbyterian  Church” 
— “Free  Missions” — Several  early  Missionary  organizations — “ Union  Missionary 
Soe.” — “ W.  India  Committee” — “ Amistad  Committee” — “ Western  Miss.  Asso.” 
— Merged  (1S46)  in  “Am.  Miss.  Association” — Church  agitation  at  the  West- 
Large  Conventions  at  Cincinnati  and  Chicago — Papers  devoted  to  these  movements 
— Church  agitation  among  Baptists — Correspondence  with  English  Baptists — 
Mission  of  Cox  and  Hoby — Organization  of  a “Baptist  Anti-Slavery  Convention” 
(as  a permanent  body),  in  1840 — Panic  among  Southern  Baptists — Renewed  oppo- 
sition by  Northern  Baptists— Records  of  pro-slavery  action  among  them — “ Com- 
promise Article”— Expulsion  of  Elon  Galnsha  and  others  from  the  Missionary 
Board,  in  obedience  to  Southern  demands — Baptist  “ Free  Miss.  Soc.”  organized 
1843,  by  abolitionists — Old  Boards,  Slaveholding  Missionaries — “ Triennial  Con- 
vention” dissolved — A new  “ Baptist  Miss.  Union”  succeeds  it-j-Its  character — 
Its  anti-slavery  professions  examined  ; also  other  Baptist  organizations — Missions 
cf  the  “Am.  Bap.  Free  Mission  Soc.” — N.  Y.  Central  College. 

It  would  be  interesting  to  trace  the  history  of  anti-slavery 
Church  agitation,  for  the  last  sixteen  years.  The  items  lie 
so  scattered  among  different  sects,  and  in  various  localities, 
that  it  would  be  a great  task  to  collect,  to  classify,  and  to  pre- 
sent them.  There  are  materials  sufficient  for  volumes,  but  we 
have  room  for  only  a few  pages.  - 

It  was  seen  by  many,  at  an  early  day,  that  the  same  prin- 
ciple that  required  political  secession,  required,  in  like  cases, 
ecclesiastical  secession ; and  the  more  especially  as  the  Church 
is  naturally  expected  to  be  purer  than  the  State,  and  to  con- 
stitute the  guide  and  teacher,  by  which,  on  great  moral  ques- 
tions, the  legislation  of  a country  must  be  moulded. 


> 


488  GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 

Tliis  was  seen  and  felt  Jiy  many  wlio  attended  the  Nations  it 
Anti-Slavery  Convention  for  political  discussion  at  Albany 
commencing  July  31,  1889.  A large  portion  of  those  in  tha 
Convention  who  were  church  members,  and  who  were  thei 
looking  forward,  though  vaguely,  to  some  new  modes  of  po 
litical  action,  assembled  each  morning  before  breakfast,  during 
that  Convention,  for  mutual  prayer,  and  for  a free  considers 
tion  of  their  ecclesiastical  relations.*  The  result  was  a gen 
eral  determination  among  those  present  to  push  the  slave 
question  in  the  churches,  to  “ abolitionize”  them  if  possible, 
and  if  not,  secede  from  them.  A resolution  was  adopted  and. 
afterwards  published,  recommending  “Christian  Anti-slavery 
Conventions”  for  this  end.  Even  before  this  date,  something 
of  the  kind  had  been  done  on  a limited  scale  in  the  region  of 
central  New  York,  where  “Anti-slavery  Conferences  and 
prayrnr  meetings”  had  been  frequently  held,  attended  by  abo- 
litionists from  a few  adjoining  towns. 

The  same  connection  was  perceived  by  some  at  the  Albany 
Convention  just  mentioned,  who  were  opposed  to  •political  se- 
cession, and  who  urged,  as  an  objection  against  an  anti-slavery 
party  in  politics,  that  it  would  lead  to  similar  schisms  and 
difficulties  in  the  Church.  The  right  course,  we  were  told, 
was  to  “abolitionize”  all  the  sects  and  all  the  parties  in  reli- 
gion and  politics,  and  then  the  work  would  be  done.  The 
question,  nevertheless,  recurred,  “What  shall  we  do  when  we 
find  it  impossible  to  reform  them  ? Shall  we  continue  to  sus- 
tain them,  to  be  corrupted,  perhaps,  by  them,  and  to  become 
a partaker  of  their  sins  ?” 

“Christian  Anti-slavery  Conventions”  were  accord- 
ingly notified  and  held  at  various  points  in  the  State  of  New 
York, — at  Auburn,  Penn  Yan,  Clinton,  Syracuse,  and  a large 
number  of  other  places, — beginning  soon  after  the  rise  of  the 
Liberty  party.  They  were  attended  by  many  of  those  who 


* The  prominent  exceptions  to  this  statement,  should  we  specify  them,  would  ha 
found  to  be  those  who  are  not  now  (1852)  in  the  ranks  of  the  Liberty  party,  nor 
active  in  political  efforts  against  slavery. 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


489 


iave  been  active  in  the  Liberty  party, — Smith,  Birney,  Stew- 
irt,  Green,  Chaplin,  Torrey,  Goodell,  and  others, — and  were, 
ome  of  them,  among  the  largest  and  most  interesting  anti- 
lavery  conventions  ever  held  in  the  State."  A little  paper, 
:onducted  by  Win.  Goodell,  devoted  mainly  to  this  object, 
vas  commenced  in  1841,  and  was  published  occasionally  till 
he  beginning  of  1843,  then  monthly  till  the  summer  of  1848. 
.t  was  circulated  in  all  the  free  and  some  of  the  slave  States, 
ind  was  supported  mainly  by  members  of  the  Liberty  party. 

INDEPENDENT  CHURCHES. 

As  a result  of  all  this,  a large  number  of  local  independent 
Churches  have  been  gathered  by  secession  from  the  old 
Ihurches  of  several  different  sects,  and  holding  no  ecclesiasti- 
:al  connection  with  them.  This  movement  is  chiefly  in  the 
state  of  New  York  and  farther  west. 

WESLEYAN  METHODIST  CHURCH. 

From  an  early  period  of  the  present  anti-slavery  discussion, 
here  has  been  an  efficient  body  of  Methodist  abolitionists, 
he  denomination  has  been  extensively  agitated,  and  the  re- 
sult has  been  a secession  from  the  M.  E.  Church  and  the  or- 
ganization of  a new  ecclesiastical  connection,  known . as  the 
‘Wesleyan  Methodist  Church.” 

In  the  latter  part  of  the  year  1834,  a number  of  ministers 
md  members  of  the  New  England  and  New  Hampshire  Con- 
ferences, addressed  an  appeal  to  their  brethren  on  behalf  of 
he  anti-slavery  cause.  This  drew  forth  a “counter-appeal,” 
signed  by  the  late  Pres.  Fisk  and  others.  Earnest  discussions 
md  debates  followed.  The  cause  of  anti-slavery  made  pro- 
gress, and  an  anti-slavery  delegation  from  the  above  confer- 
inces  to  the  General  Conference  (with  exception  of  one  dele- 


* A pamphlet,  entitled  “ The  American  Churches  the  Bulwarks  of  American  Sla- 
very” (the  first  publication  of  the  kind  that  we  know  of),  was  published  by  James 
}.  Birney,  the  Presidential  candidate  of  the  Liberty  party,  while  in  England,  where 
le  attended  the  “ World’s  Anti-Slavery  Convention.”  Its  republication  and  circu- 
ation  in  America  did  much  to  forward  the  church  agitation  of  the  slave  question. 


490 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


gate)  was  secured.  The  opposition  was  however  so  strong, 
even  at  the  North,  and  the  course  of  the  General  Conference 
was  such,  that  a secession  was  deemed  unavoidable.  Loca 
secessions  commenced  in  Michigan  in  1839.  Three  minister 
— Jotham  Horton,  Orange  Scott,  and  La  Roy  Sunderland,— 
signed  an  act  of  withdrawal  from  the  M.  E.  Church,  dated  a 
Providence,  R.  I.,  Nov.  8,  1842.  At  a Convention  held  fo 
the  purpose,  at  Utica,  N.  Y.,  May  31,  1843,  the  Wesleyai 
Methodist  Church  was  regularly  organized.  Its  polity  is  no 
Episcopal,  but  provides  for  an  itinerancy  under  a modifiec 
supervision  of  conferences,  recognizing  the  rights  of  congre- 
gations, and  the  participancy  of  laymen.  At  the  South  anc 
West,  E.  Smith  has  been  an  effective  pioneer  in  the  enter 
prise.  The  Wesley ans  have  made  an  inroad  into  North  Caro 
lina,  and  gained  a promising  foothold,  though  some  of  then 
ministers  Have  been  ejected.  The  connection  now  (1852)  em 
braces  “twelve  annual  conferences.”  The  “ General  Confer 
ence,  which  is  the  rule-making  body,  meets  once  in  four  years 
and  is  composed  of  an  equal  number  of  ministers  and  lay 
men.”  Churches  may  elect  their  own  pastors. — Vide  “ Ground 
of  Secession" — Matlock's  History — and  MSS.  by  Luther  Lee. 

FREE  PRESBYTERIAN  CHURCH. 

This  church  was  organized,  a few  years  ago,  during  the 
sittings  of  the  General  Assembly  at  Cincinnati.  It  embraces 
Presbyterians  of  both  the  Old  and  New  School  in  Theology, 
who  agree  in  respect  to  the  necessity  of  separation  from  slave- 
holders. Among  the  pioneers  of  this  movement  is  the  Rev. 
John  Rankin,  of  Ripley,  Ohio,  formerly  of  Kentucky,  who1 
wrote  and  published  in  favor  of  immediate  emancipation,  in 
1824  or  ’25,  before  the  commencement  of  Mr.  Garrison’s  la- 
bors. In  the  connection  there  are  about  fifty  Churches,  and 
three  Presbyteries,  extending  through  portions  of  Pennsylva-1 
nia,  Ohio,  Indiania,  and  Illinois,  the  whole  composing  the 
“Free  Synod  of  Cincinnati.” 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


491 


FRIENDS. 

A division  among  the  Society  of  Friends  in  Indiana,  has 
rrown  out  of  the  slave  question,  and  the  manner  in  which 
ictive  abolitionists  in  the  Society  had  been  treated  in  their 
nearly  and  annual  meetings. 

Except  the  Wesleyan  secession,  there  has  been  but  little 
Church  secession  and  re-organization  in  New  England,  but 
ibolitionists  of  the  Congregational  sect  in  that  quarter,  extend 
t pretty  liberal  support  to  the  new  “American  Missionary 
Association,”  in  preference  to  the  “ American  Board.” 

FREE  MISSIONS. 

An  Anti-slavery  Missionary  Committee  was  organized  at 
Boston  at  an  early  day,  in  principal  reference,  we  believe,  to 
>perations  in  the  British  West  Indies.  The  “ Amistad  Com- 
nittee,”  having  in  charge  the  captives  taken  in  that  vessel, 
irovided  missionaries  to  accompany  them  home,  and  estab- 
ished  a mission  among  them.  A “ Union  Missionary  So- 
:iety”  was  formed  by  a number  of  white  and  colored  minis- 
,ers  and  others,  in  New  York  and  Connecticut.  The  Western 
Missionary  Association,  at  Oberlin,  Ohio,  was  also  of  an  anti- 
slavery  character.  All  these  were  afterwards  merged  in  the 
'■American  Missionary  Association ,”  which  was  formed  by  a 
Convention  of  delegates  at  Albany  in  the  autumn  of  1846,  on 
i new  and  broader  basis,  encouraging  the  local  efforts  of 
Churches  and  auxiliaries  to  sustain  and  superintend  their 
)wn  missionaries.-  The  Executive  Committee,  instead  of  be- 
ng  a “close  corporation,”  like  the  American  Board,  is  chosen 
mnuallyby  the  contributing  constituency;  they  exercise  limited 
'unctions,  and  their  proceedings  are  subject  to  examination 
md  revision  at  the  annual  meetings  of  their  constituents,  the 
nembers  of  the  association.  The  association  has  mission’s  in 
Africa,  in  Siam,  in  the  West  Indies,  among  the  Ojibue  Li- 
lians, at  the  Sandwich  Islands,  and  in  Canada.  It  also  occu- 
lies,  to  a considerable  extent,  the  field  of  Home  Missions, 


492 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


which,  are  included  in  its  plan.  It  has  a missionary  in  Kei. 
tucky,  where  two  new  Churches  have  been  organized  th; 
exclude  slaveholders.  An  important  auxiliary  to  this  ass< 
ciation  has  recently  been  organized  in  Ohio,  canying  on  iii 
own  operations  in  that  region,  in  a manner  provided  for  i 
the  Constitution  of  the  American  Missionary  Association. 

CHURCH  AGITATION  AT  THE  WEST. 

The  subject  of  Anti-slavery  Church  Eeform  has  recent! 
received  a fresh  impulse  in  the  Western  States.  In  Apri 
1850,  a large  and  influential  Christian  Anti-slavery  Conven 
tion  was  held . at  Cincinnati,  Ohio,  invited  by  a committee  re1 
presenting  several  religious  denominations.  Members  wen 
in  attendance  from  most  of  the  Middle  and  Western  States 
A similar  convention  was  held  at  Chicago,  111.,  in  July,  1852 
At  these  conventions,  after  long  and  earnest  discussions,  reso 
lutions  were  adopted  in  favor  of  withdrawing  from  churches 
ecclesiastical  bodies,  and  missionary  organizations,  connectec 
with  slaveholding.  Among  the  active  members  of  one  o;! 
both  of  these  conventions  were  Rev.  B.  P.  Aydellotte,  D.  D. 
late  President  of  Woodward  College,  Rev.  C.  G.  Finney., 
President  of  Oberlin  College,  Rev.  Asa  Mahan,  President  of 
Cleveland  University,  Rev.  Jona.  Blanchard,  President  of 
Knox  College,  Illinois,  Rev.  John  Rankin,  Rev.  Dr.  Wilson, 
of  Pittsburg,  Rev.  E.  Smith,  Rev.  J.  B.  Walker,  Rev.  E.  H, 
Nevin,  Rev.  Samuel  Lewis,  Rev.  Dr.  Brisbane,  Rev.  C.  B, 
Boynton,  Rev.  E.  Goodman,  Rev.  John  G.  Fee  of  Kentucky, 
&c.  &c.,  and  some  from  the  more  easterly  States. 

“ The  “ Christian  Era,”  Chicago — the  “ Christian  Press,”! 
Cincinnati — and  the  '‘Free  Presbyterian,”  are  journals  de- 
voted to  Free  Missions  and  Anti-slavery  Church  Reformation. 
The  “Free  Wesleyan,”  New  York,  is  the  organ  of  the  Wes- 
leyan connection.  Baptist  abolitionists  have  had  their  “ Chris- 
tian Reflector,”  “ Christian  Contributor,”  “American  Baptist,” 
&c.  &c. 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


493 


BAPTISTS. 

The  history  of  anti-slavery  agitation  among  Baptists  con- 
ects  itself  so  closely  with  the  history  of  pro-slavery  move- 
lents  in  the  same  sect,  that  we  must  present  them  together. 
The  position  of  the  Baptist  denomination,  Northern  and 
outhern,  concerning  slavery,  was  shown  in  a former  chapter,* 
> far  as  it  could  be  done  without  distinctly  anticipating  the 
;count  of  the  struggle  between  abolitionists  and  their  op- 
Dsers  in  that  sect.  Some  further  particulars  are  in  place 
ere,  connected  with  the  anti-slavery  Church  agitation  among 
lem. 

The  leading  influences  in  this  sect,  as  in  the  others,  were 
rought  to  bear,  at  an  early  day,  against  all  agitation  of  the 
ibject.  The  violent  denunciations  against  abolitionists,  by  a 
aptist  Association  in  Virginia,  in  1835,  has  been  noticed 
ready .f  A spirit  of  servility,  as  in  the  other  sects  and  in 
te  political  parties,  was  already  manifest  among  Baptists  at 
ie  North.  The  Baptist  Magazine,  as  early  as  1834,  like  the 
ading  periodicals  of  the  other  principal  sects,  was  closed 
gainst  the  discussion. 

The  “Board  of  Baptist  Ministers,  in  and  near  London,” 
ec.  31,  1833,  addressed  a fraternal  letter,  signed  by  Eld.  W. 
!.  Murch,  their  Chairman,  to  “the  Pastors  and  Ministers  of 
le  Baptist  denomination  throughout  the  United  States  of 
.merica.”  In  this  letter  they  gave  an  account  of  their  own 
ruggle  in  England  against  slavery  in  the  British  West  In- 
ies,  and  made  some  very  modest  suggestions  respecting 
avery  in  the  United  States.  It  was  directed  to  “ Bev.  Spen- 
:r  H.  Cone,  President,  the  Board  of  Managers,  and  the  Dele- 
ates  of  the  Baptist  Triennial  Convention,”  supposing  this  to 
? the  most  ready  method  of  access  to  Baptist  churches  in 
.merica.  Eld.  Howard  Malcom,  afterwards  a slaveholder 
. Kentucky,  though  then  a Northern  man,  was  clerk  of  the 
invention.  The  letter  was  kept  at  Boston  several  months, 


Chapter  XV. 


t Chapter  XXXV. 


494 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


then  sent  to  Elders  Cone  and  Somers,  New  York,  and  V 
them  returned  to  the  Board  at  Boston. 

By  Sept.  1,  1834,  an  answer  was  prepared  by  a Committe 
of  the  Board,  accompanied  with  a series  of  resolutions.  Th 
tone  of  these  was  apologetic  of  slaveholding,  yet  disclaimin' 
responsibility  for  its  existence,  declining  to  interfere  with  tb 
subject,  and  adducing  the  “consideration”  that  “there  is  not 
a pleasing  degree  of  union  among  the  multiplying  thousand 
of  Baptists  throughout  the  land.” . To  this  was  added  a warn 
eulogium  of  “our  Southern  brethren”  who  “are  generally 
both  ministers  and  people,  slaveholders,”  yet  “liberal  ant 
enterprising  in  the  promotion  of  every  holy  enterprise  fo 
the  extension  of  the  gospel.”  This  reply,  as  well  as  the  let 
ter  from  England,  were  kept  secret.  And  it  was  not  unti 
the  publication  of  both  documents  in  England,  and  their  re 
publication  by  the  editor  of  the  (Presbyterian)  New  Yorl 
Observer,  (who  was  gratified  with  the  American  answer)  tha 
the  editor  of  the  Baptist  “Christian  Watchman”  in  Boston 
after  request  by  Eld.  Grosvenor,  gave  them  to  his  Baptis 
readers,  thirteen  months  after  the  date  of  the  English  letter. 

Another  answer,  and  of  an  opposite  tone,  “ with  more  thai 
one  hundred  and  eighty  signatures,”  was  however  sent  to  the 
“ Baptist  Board  in  and  near  London,”  by  a Baptist  Conven 
tion  held  in  Boston,  May  26  and  27,  1835. — Facts  for  Baptis 
Churches , p.  15-29. 

“ Soon  after  (this)  correspondence,  Elds.  Cox  and  Hoby,  delegates  fron 
the  Baptist  Union,  (England)  visited  this  country.  The  influence  of  the 
Triennial  Convention  was  employed  to  keep  them  as  silent  as  possible  it 
regard  to  the  enormous  sin  of  American  slavery.1’ — lb.  p.  29. 

The  delegates  were  sent  to  America,  charged  by  the  Eng- 
lish Baptist  Union  with  the  following  mission: 

“We  send  our  deputation  to  promote  most  zealously,  and  to  the  utmost 
of  their  ability,  in  the  spirit  of  love,  of  discretion  and  fidelity,  but  still 
most  zealously  to  promote  the  sacred  cause  of  negro  emancipation.” 

The  delegation  attended  the  Triennial  Convention  at  Bich- 
mond,  Virginia,  but  said  not  a word  in  public  concerning 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


495 


avery.  One  of  them,  Elder  Cox,  declined  an  invitation  to 
ike  part  in  the  proceedings  of  the  American  Anti-Slavery 
ociety  in  New  York.  He  also  declined  a similar  invitation 
t Boston.  But  soon  afterwards,  at  the  Free-Will  Baptist 
'early  Meeting  in  New  Hampshire,  he  adventured  to  speak 
gainst  slavery. — lb.,  pp.  296-302. 

This  was  in  1835.  On  the  return  of  the  delegation  to  Eng- 
md,  and  their  report  to  the  English  Baptist  Union,  in  June, 
836,  resolutions  against  slavery  were  adopted,  and  it  was 
oted  that  the  committee  take  an  early  opportunity  to  address 
letter  to  the  American  Baptist  Triennial  Convention  on  the 
abject.  This  was  accordingly  done,  under  date  of  London, 
■ept.  13,  1836. 

From  this  letter  it  appears  that  the  English  delegation, 
File  in  this  countr}r,  “ although  they  did  not  mention  the 
abject  of  slavery  in  the  public  proceedings  of  the  Conven- 
.on ; yet,  at  a private  meeting  assembled  for  the  purpose,” 
aey  made  known  the  import  of  their  errand.  The  letter 
rgued  against  slavery  at  some  length. 

It  was  answered,  Jan.  7,  1837,  not  by  the  Board,  to  whom 
: was  addressed,  but  by  one  of  the  members,  Elder  Baron 
Stowe,  of  Boston,  informing  that  “ the  Board,  under  existing 
ircumstances,  will  not,  in  any  way,  intermeddle  with  the  sub- 
let of  slavery.” 

A number  of  English  Baptist  Associations  adopted  resolu- 
ions  on  the  subject  of  American  slavery,  and  expressive  of 
heir  deep  mortification  and  regret  at  the  position  of  Baptists 
a America. 

The  English  Baptist  Union,  May,  1837,  adopted  a resolu- 
ion  of  sympathy  with  American  abolitionists,  and  addressed 
letter  “ to  the  Ministers  and  members  of  Baptist  churches 
i the  United  States,”  entreating  them  to  “ listen  to  the  cries 
f the  oppressed,  at  whatever  cost.”  Fraternal  correspond- 
nce,  between  American  Baptist  abolitionists  and  Baptist 
odies  in  England,  was  continued,  afterwards. — lb.,  pp.  30-44. 
Thus  encouraged,  Baptist  abolitionists  in  America,  a few 
reeks  after  the  organization  of  the  Liberty  party,  and  simul- 


496 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


taneously  with  similar  movements,  in  some  form,  among  abc 
litionists  of  other  sects,  assembled  in  a general  or  Nationa- 
Convention.  It  was  held  in  Macdougal-Street  Baptist  Church 
New  York,  April  28,  1840,  “ for  the  purpose  of  considering 
the  connection  of  the  denomination  with  slavery,  and  inquii 
ing,  1 What  could  be  done  ?’  ” 

An  organized  “ National  Baptist  Anti-Slavery  Convention’ 
was  the  result.  An  address  was  issued  to  the  Baptist  churche; 
of  the  North,  and  another  to  “Baptist  slaveholders  in  th< 
Southern  States.” 

This  was  the  signal  for  renewed  opposition.  The  slave, 
holders  threatened.  And  influential  ministers  at  the  Nortl 
sent  forth  their  “Counsels  and  Cautions.” — “ Facts,'’  &c.,  pp 
44-45. 

“ In  1841,  the  Triennial  Convention  was  to  hold  its  appointed  meeting  ir 
Baltimore.  All  parties,  North  and  South,  looked  forward  with  deep  interesi 
to  this  session.” — lb.,  p.  49. 

The  Savannah  Biver  Baptist  Association 

1.  “ Resolved , That  we  deem  the  conduct  of  northern  abolitionists  highly 
censurable  and  meddlesome,  and  request  our  State  Convention  to  instruct 
their  delegates  to  the  Triennial  Convention  to  demand  of  our  northern  bre- 
thren WHETHER  THEY  CAN  ACKNOWLEDGE  THOSE  FANATICS  AS  THEIR  CO- 
WORKERS  IN  THE  GREAT  WORK  OF  EVANGELIZING  THE  WORLD,  and  to  State 

fully  to  them  the  impossibility  of  our  further  co-operation,  unless  they 

DISMISS  SUCH  FROM  THEIR  BODY.” 

2.  “ Resolved , That  the  State  Convention  be  requested  to  retain  the  funds 
sent  by  this  Association  until  the  Triennial  Convention  shall  publish  their 
repudiation  of  the  whole  spirit  and  conduct  of  Baptist  abolitionists.” — lb., 
p.  49. 

The  Camden  (S.  C.)  Baptist  Church  unanimously 

“ Resolved,  That  we  recommend  to  our  Association  to  use  their  influence 
to  have  Elon  Galusha  expelled  from  his  office  of  Vice-President  of  the 
Board  of  Foreign  Missions  ; that  they  have  a right  to  require  it,  and  should 
make  his  expulsion  the  condition  of  their  future  connection  with  the 
Board.” 

“ Resolved,  That  we  extend  to  Northern  Baptists  opposed  to  the  aboli- 
tionists our  warmest  affection  and  fraternal  regard.  They  will  ever  have 
an  interest  in  our  prayers.” — lb.,  p.  50. 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


497 


The  editor  of  the  (Baptist)  Religious  Herald,  Richmond,  Va.,  after  de- 
scribing the  Baptist  Anti-Slavery  Convention  and  its  doings,  in  connection 
with  the  foregoing  action  of  the  Camden  Church,  says  : “In  North  Caro- 
lina, South  Carolina,  Georgia  and  Alabama,  Conventions,  Associations  and 
Churches,  have  noticed  this  Address  to  Southern  Baptists.” — lb. 

About  this  time  a correspondent  of  the  (Baptist)  Recorder  & 
Watchman  (FT.  C.)  stated  that  the  President  and  seven  of,  the 
fifteen  Vice-Presidents  of  the  Board  of  Foreign  Missions  live 
in  slaveholding  States  and  District  of  Columbia,  &c.,  adding, 
“ It  is  also  Avell  known  that  the  Acting  Board  in  Boston  are 
decidedly  in  opposition  to  abolition  measures .” — lb.,  p.  51. 

“ The  Circular  of  the  Boston  Board (Daniel  Sharp,  Presi- 
dent, Baron  Stowe,  Secretary,)  as  published  in  the  Christiari 
Reflector , Dec.  2,  1840,  manifests  great  solicitude  to  exclude 
“ irrelevant  subjects .”  It  describes  the  one  exclusive  object  of 
the  Association,  the  promotion  of  Foreign  Missions,  and  de- 
precates the  withdrawal  of  support  by  contributors.  Thc- 
Board  must  not  be  held  “ accountable  for  things  done  and  not 
done,  in  relation  to  all  which,  alike,  the  Board  has  done  nothing, 
because  it  had  nothing  to  doT 

This  was  an  elaborate  effort  to  retain  the  support  of  both 
abolitionists  and  slaveholders,  and  it  satisfied  neither  party. 
The  Georgia  Baptist  State  Convention  expressed  their  dis- 
satisfaction ; the  Board  replied,  and  sent  out  their  Treasurer, 
Mr.  Heman  Lincoln,  to  explain,  verbally.  But  all  in  vain. 
The  Chairman  of  the  Georgia  Executive  Committee  said : 

“ If  the  object  of  the  Board  in  sending  their  delegate  to  us,  is  to  try  to 
steer  between  us  and  the  abolitionists,  they  might  have  spared  themselves 
THE  EXPENSE  AND  TROUBLE.” lb.,  p.  57.  * 

The  American  and  Foreign  Bible  Society,  Feb.  3,  1841,  sent 
out  an  address  to  its  members  and  supporters  of  a similar 
character,  signed  by  S.  H.  Cone,  President,  C.  G.  Somers,  Cor. 
Secretary. 

A kindred  “ Circular  of  the  Executive  Committee  of  the 
American  Baptist  Home  Missionary  Society ,”  S.  H.  Cone,  Chair- 
man, Benj.  M.  Hill,  Cor.  Sec.,  was  issued  a few  days  after, 
Feb.  16th.  This  was  addressed  “ to  the  Churches It  has  less 

32 


498 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


the  appearance  of  neutrality  than  the  preceding  document 
It  alludes  to  “ the  action  of  Anti-Slavery  Societies  formed  s- 
the  North.”  “ Our  brethren  at  the  South,  with  great  um 
nimity,”  says  the  Circular,  “ deprecate  the  discussion  as  umvai 
ranted,  the  measures  pursued  as  fatal  to  their  safety,  am 
complain  of  the  language  occasionally  employed  as  cruel  am 
slanderous.”  But  the  Society  could  not  act  on  the  subject 
“ We  need  union,'’  say  they,  11  as  a denomination:  And  a 
patriots , we  must  cherish  religious  union , as  one  among  the  strong 
est , although  not  the  most  prominent , of  the  lands  that  hold  toge 
tlier  the  Union  of  these  States."  Thus  “the  churches”  wen. 
exhorted  to  shape  their  religious  union,  for  the  promotion  ol 
political  ends , though,  in  the  same  Circular,  the  same  churchef 
were  warned  not  to  “ furnish  an  armory  for  the  secular  con 
diets  of  the  times,”  but  to  say  with  Nehemiah,  “I  am  doinc 
a great  work,  and  I cannot  come  down!” — lb.,  pp.  67-71. 

Such  were  the  teachers  under  which  northern  Baptists  were 
trained  for  the  Triennial  Convention,  which  assembled  at  Bal- 
timore, in  April,  1841.  In  a secret  caucus,  a so-called  “Com- 
promise Article,”  drawn  up  by  Eld.  S.  H.  Cone,  was  adopted 
and  signed  by  74  persons,  including  prominent  northern  men. 

. Like  all  other  “ compromises”  on  the  slave  question,  it  gave 
all  to  slavery.  It  discouraged  “ innovation”  and  “new  tests.” 
This  would  be  understood  as  a censure  of  abolitionists  who 
contemplated  a separation  from  slavery,  or  who  refused  to 
commune  with  slaveholders.  If  any  should  think  of  its  possi- 
ble application  to  the  southern  “ demand”  of  excluding  aboli- 
tionists from  office  in  the  Missionary  Board,  the  illusion  would 
soon  be  dissipated  by  the  action  of  the  Convention. 

In  the  election  of  officers,  those  “demands”  were  substan- 
tially complied  with,  to  the  full  satisfaction  of  the  South,  as 
was  afterwards  expressed.  All  known  abolitionists  were  left 
off  the  Board  of  Foreign  Missions.  Eld.  Baron  Stowe  was  not  an 
exception.  He  had  been  obnoxious  to  the  South,  but  in  a 
letter  to  the  Foreign  Secretary,  read  at  the  meeting  of  the 
Southern  Delegates,  he  expressed  his  unwillingness  “ to  deny 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM.  499 

my  courtesy  to  a Christian  brother  because  he  is  a slave- 
lolder.” 

Elder  Elon  Gralusha,  whose  expulsion  was  demanded  by 
iame,  was  accordingly  ostracized.  Eld.  Richard  Fuller,  of 
5.  Carolina,  a slaveholder,  and  a Biblical  defender  of  slavery, 
vas  elected  in  his  room. — lb.  p.  82-8. 

The  delegation  from  the  South  held  a meeting  before  leav- 
ng  Baltimore,  and  addressed  a letter  to  their  constituents,  in 
.vhich  they  say — “ The  election  of  the  Board  of  Managers  re- 
sulted agreeably  to  our  wishes.”  Signed  by  F.  Stocks,  Chair- 
non,  J.  B.  Jeter,  Sec.  pro.  tern. — lb.  p.  85-6. 

But  the  Baptist  abolitionists  were  not  discouraged.  The 
mniversary  of  the  American  Baptist  Anti-Slavery  Convention 
vas,  soon  after,  held  in  New  York  City,  and  another  Conven- 
tion was  held  in  Boston. 

The  extreme  solicitude  of  the  northern  Conservatists  to  pre- 
serve “ union”  only  precipitated  the  inevitable  rupture.  And 
the  “Compromise  article”  of  1841,  like  the  later  “Compro- 
mise measures”  in  Congress,  instead  of  settling  “ the  vexed” 
question,  only  opened  the  controversy  afresh.  The  excind- 
ing  of  the  abolitionists,  like  the  Fugitive  Slave  bill,  only  served 
to  show  the  North  its  degraded  position.  The  continued  em- 
ployment of  slaveholding  missionaries  was  too  glaring  an  out- 
rage to  be  tolerated  in  the  free  States.  The  proposed  change 
in  that  policy  would  be  equivalent  to  open  war  on  their 
“brethren  of  the  South.”  The  two  Missionary  Boards,  (the 
Home  and  the  Foreign)  were  placed  in  no  enviable  position. 
The  slaveholders  on  the  one  side,  and  the  abolitionists  on  the 
other,  like  the  upper  and  nether  mill-stone,  were  likely  to 
grind  them  to  powder. 

The  Baptist  Anti-Slavery  Convention  and  its  labors  resulted 
in  the  permanent  organization  of  “ The  American  Baptist  Free 
Missionary  Society,”  in  Boston,  May  4,  1843.  It  was  a timely 
and  decisive  step,  forming  an  era  in  the  history  of  American 
Baptist  Missions. — lb.  p.  384. 

The  old  Boards  met  again,  at  Philadelphia,  in  April,  1844. 
“ The  chief  theatre  of  discussion  was  the  Home  Mission  So- 


500 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


cietj ; yet  as  the  same  individuals  constituted  both  societies 
the  influence  told  with  equal  power  on  the  Triennial  Conven’ 
tion.”  The  point  in  debate  was  the  employment  of  slavehold 
ing  missionaries.  In  neither  society  was  any  definite  actioi 
reached,  further  than  the  adoption  of  resolutions  evading  tin 
question,  disclaiming  any  action  for  or  against  slavery,  anc 
leaving  each  member  free  to  be  a slaveholder  or  an  abolition 
ist,  as  he  pleased.  In  the  Home  Society,  this  passed  by  a vot< 
121  to  61.  In  the  Foreign  (from  which  abolitionists  were,  per 
haps,  either  displaced  or  had  withdrawn,)  it  was  said  to  havf 
been  adopted  unanimously.  But  neither  abolitionists  nor 
slaveholders  could  be  conciliated  or  satisfied,  for  both  were  it 
earnest,  and  wished  for  some  decision  of  the  matter.  A mo- 
tion, in  the  Home  Society,  for  a Committee  to  report  or 
“ an  amicable  division,"  was  also  adopted  unanimously  ! — lb. 
p.  87-94. 

Similar  action  was  had  by  the  Foreign  Board,  at  a meeting 
at  Providence,  in  1845. 

The  division  was,  in  fact,  rendered  inevitable,  by  the  posi- 
tion in  -which  the  Acting  Board,  at  Boston,  found  themselves 
placed.  Determined  to  maintain  a neutral  position,  they  were 
reluctantly  driven  from  it,  by  the  action  of  the  Alabama  Bap- 
tist State  Convention.  By  this  body  a letter  was  addressed  to 
the  Board,  Nov.  25,  1844,  transmitting  resolutions,  in  which 
they  “ demand  the  distinct  and  explicit  avowal  that  slavehold- 
ers are  eligible  and  entitled  to  all  the  privileges  and  immuni- 
ties of  their  several  unions,  and  especially  to  receive  any 
agency,  mission,  or  other  appointment  which  may  fall  within 
the  scope  of  their  operations  and  duties.”  This  was  a test 
which  could  no  longer  be  evaded.  Abolitionists  as  well  as 
slaveholders  were  watching  them.  In  their  reply,  dated  Bos- 
ton, Dec.  17,  1844,  the  Acting  Board  said — 

“ Allow  us  to  express  our  profound  regret  that  they”  (the  Resolutions) 
“were  addressed  to  us.  They  were  not  necessary.  We  have  never,  as  a 
Board,  done,  or  omitted  to  do,  anything  which  requires  the  explanations  and 
avowals  that  your  resolutions  1 demanded.’  They  also  place  us  in  the  new 
and  trying  position  of  being  compelled  to  answer  hypothetical  questions,” 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


501 


icc.  They  farther  said  that  they  had  “ never  called  in  question  your  (the 
laveholder’s)  social  equality,  as  to  all  the  privileges  and  benefits  of  the  Fo- 
eign  Missionary  Union.”  “Nor,”  say  the  Board,  “have  we  ever  em- 
iloyed  our  official  influence  in  impeaching  you.” 

After  much,  ingenious  circumlocution,  they,  however,  pro- 
ceeded to  say : 

“ If,  however,  any  one  should  offer  himself  as  a missionary,  having 
daves,  and  should  insist  on  retaining  them  as  his  property,  we  could  not 
ippoint  him.”  * * * “ We  disfellowship  no  one.”  * * * “ If  our 

orethren  in  Alabama,  with  this  exposition  of  our  principles  and  feelings,  can 
30-operate  with  us,  we  shall  be  happy  to  receive  their  aid.  If  they  cannot, 
painful  to  us  as  will  be  their  withdrawal,  yet  we  shall  submit  to  it,  as  being 
neither  caused  nor  sought  by  us.” 

Of  the  consistency  of  this  we  say  nothing.  The  reader 
will  judge  of  it,  and  whether  a principle  of  disfellowship 
with  slavery,  or  only  a reluctant  compliance  with  a northern 
sentiment  avowed  by  abolitionists,  occasioned  the  refusal  to 
appoint  slaveholding  missionaries. 

The  decision  produced  of  course  a great  sensation  at  the 
South.  Conventions  and  Associations  recommended  a gene- 
ral Southern  Convention  to  form  a new  Missionary  Board. 
The  Tennessee  Baptist  Foreign  Missionary  Society,  however, 
at  a meeting  in  Nashville,  April  2,  1845,  expressed  their 
regret  that  the  Acting  Board  at  Boston  should  have  been  sus- 
pected and  interrogated ; yet  they  said,  the  Acting  Board,  by 
its  answer,  had  “ rendered  themselves  justly  obnoxious  to  the  cen- 
sures of  the  whole  church, ” ancl  they  “ Resolved,  that,  in  our  opin- 
ion, the  Convention  will  not  sustain  the  position  of  the  present 
Acting  Board  in  regard  to  slavery .” 

These  proceedings  were  transmitted  “ to  the  Board  of  the 
Triennial  Convention  soon  to  convene  in  annual  session  at 
Providence,  R.  I.,”  and  the  closing  prediction  was  then  veri- 
fied. The  neutral  position  there  assumed  (as  already  seen) 
was  a virtual  reproof  of  the  Acting  Board.  Besolutions  ap- 
proving their  course  were  offered  by  Eld.  B.  T.  Welch,  but 
being  warmly  resisted,  were  withdrawn. — lb.,  pp.  104^-13,  also 
145-6,  &c. 


502 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


But  nothing  could  now  save  either  the  “ Acting  Board”  of 
Foreign  Missions,  or  the  “ Triennial  Convention.”  Their  dis- 
solution was  manifestly  inevitable. 

“ The  Home  Mission  Board  was  subjected  to  a similar  test.  The  Georgia 
Baptist  Convention  sent  to  this  Board  the  name  of  Mr.  James  E.  Reeve, 
stating  that  he  was  a slaveholdeb,  and  requesting  the  Board  to  appoint 
him  as  a missionary.” 

It  was  also  stated  explicitly  that  this  application  was  made 
to  test  the  position  of  the  Board.  The  Board  declined  making 
the  appointment,  not  because  the  candidate  was  a slaveholder, 
as  they  were  careful  to  explain,  but  because  the  Board,  having, 
taken  neutral  ground,  would  not  permit  that  neutrality  to  he 
disturbed  by  the  mode  of  requesting  appointments.  In  this 
respect  they  placed  abolitionists  and  slaveholders  upon  pre- 
cisely an  equal  footing.  They  said  : 

“ When  an  application  is  made  for  the  appointment  of  a slaveholder  or 
an  abolitionist,  or  an  anti-slavery  man,  as  such,  or  for  appropriations  to  fields 
where  the  design  of  the  applicant  is  apparently  to  test  the  action  of  the 
Board  in  respect  to  the  subjects  of  slavery  or  anti-slavery,  their  official 
obligation  either  to  act  on  the  appointment,  or  to  entertain  the  application, 
ceases.  Therefore, 

“ Resolved,  That  in  view  of  the  preceding  considerations,  it  is  not  expe- 
dient to  introduce  the  subjects  of  slavery  or  anti-slavery  into  our  delibera- 
tions, nor  to  entertain  applications  in  which  they  are  introduced. 

“ Resolved,  That,  taking  into  consideration  all  the  circumstances  of  the 
case,  we  deem  ourselves  not  at  liberty  to  entertain  the  application  for  the 
apppointment  of  Rev.  James  E.  Reeve.” — lb.,  pp.  124-26. 

The  action  at  Providence  was  adapted  to  soothe  and  appease 
the  slaveholders,  but  they  had  already  committed  themselves 
extensively  to  a Southern  Convention.  “ The  South  antici- 
pated the  co-operation  of  the  North  in  entering  into  their 
organization.”  The  North,  too,  (equally  opposed,  as  the  lead- 
ing men  were,  to  abolition,)  would  also  be  compelled  to  re-or- 
ganize. On  both  sides  it  was  an  amicable  as  well  as  a reluctant 
separation. 

The  Southern  Baptist  Convention  assembled  at  Au- 
gusta, (Geo.,)  May  8,  1845,  and  formed  a new  missionary 
organization,  of  the  same  name.  A sympathizing  letter  from 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


503 


^resident  Wayland  was  read,  in  which  he  said : “ Your  rights 
iave  been  infringed.”  “We”  (of  the  North)  “have  shown 
iow  Christians  ought  not  to  act.  It  remains  for  you  to  show 
is  how  they  ought  to  act.”  Mr.  Burroughs,  of  Pennsylvania, 
,vas  present,  and  said  : “ The  Middle  States  were  opposed  to 
he  action  of  the  Boston  Board,  and  were  at  a loss  what 
course  to  pursue.”  The  address  put  forth  by  the  Convention, 
mid : 

“ Let  not  the  extent  of  this  disunion  be  exaggerated.  At  the  present  time 
.t  involves  the  Foreign  and  Domestic  Missions  of  the  denomination.  North- 
ern and  Southern  Baptists  are  still  brethren.” 

A correspondence  with  the  Boston  Board  was  immediately 
opened  for  negotiating  a convenient  “ transfer  of  a portion  of 
the  missions  under  their  charge  to  the  patronage  of  the  South- 
ern Baptist  Convention.”  The  project  was  fraternally  enter- 
tained, and  the  object  tvas  ultimately  effected.  Columbian 
College,  also,  was  given  to  the  South. — lb.,  pp.  163-169,  &c., 
also  214. 

“The  American  Baptist  Missionary  Union”  is  the 
name  of  the  new  organization  at  the  North,  which  takes  the 
place  of  the  old.  The  time  and  circumstances  of  its  forma- 
tion are  as  follow : 

A special  meeting  of  the  Baptist  General  Convention  was 
held  in  New  York  City,  Nov.  19, 1845.  Eld.  Francis  Wayland, 
President,  Eld.  R.  H.  Neale,  Assistant  Secretary.  Eld.  Spencer 
H.  Cone  presented  and  explained  the  Constitution  of The 
American  Baptist  Missionary  Union,”  which,  after  discussion, 
was  adopted ; and  a committee  appointed  “ to  inform  the 
Trustees  of  Columbian  College  that  the  Triennial  Convention 
is  now  dissolved,  in  order  that  they  may  take  such  measures  as 
in  consequence  may  be  necessary.” 

“ The  Baptist  General  Convention”  was  a delegated  body, 
responsible  to  those  who  appointed  them  ; and  were  neither 
authorized  to  “dissolve,”  nor  to  form  a new  organization. 
But  they  did  both,  and  in  doing  it  they  constituted  themselves 
life  members  of  the  new  “ Union,”  free  of  cost,  providing  that 


504 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


“ other  persons”  might  become  life  members  by  paying  out 
hundred  dollars.  “ This  Union  shall  be  composed  of  life  mem' 
bers.”  The  representative  principle  was  thus  set  aside.  The 
“Union”  of  “life  members”  is  neither  responsible  to  the  con 
tributors,  nor  to  the  churches. 

Eld.  Cone,  in  explaining  the  Constitution,  said : 

“ They  did  not  want  a Missionary  Convention  to  be  divided  either  by 
Mason  and  Dixon’s  line,  or  any  other  line;  and  under  the  proposed  Con- 
stitution, no  extraneous  question  of  slavery  or  anti-slavery,  or  temper- 
ance, or  anything  else,  apart  from  the  one  great  question  for  which  they 
were  organized.  Any  member  may  pursue  his  private  predilections  as  he 

lists,  BUT  HE  CANNOT  BRING  THEM  FORWARD  IN  THE  ‘ AMERICAN  BAPTIST 

Union  for  Foreign  Missions.’  ” 

It  was  objected  that  the  terms  of  Union  would  admit 
either  Universalists  or  slaveholders,  but  the  article  was  not 
changed. 

Eld.  M.  D.  Miller,  of  Vermont,  moved  to  add  to  the  “ Qual- 
ifications of  Officers,”  the  Avords,  “ and  not  slaveholders’ ’ — 
thus  excluding  such  from  office.  The  amendment  was  lost. 

“ Eld.  J.  W.  Sawyer,  of  Maine,  presented  a communication  on  the  sub- 
ject of  slavery,  from  the  American  Baptist  Free  Mission  Society,  which 
was  unanimously  laid  on  the  table.’’ 

.Eld.  B.  T.  Welch  offered  a resolution  in  commendation  of 
the  “ Acting  Board”  at  Boston.  It  Avas  opposed  by  Elders 
J.  M.  Peck,  Turnbull,  Cone,  Stowe  and  Neale,  and  finally 
withdrawn.  [The  “ Acting  Board”  had  refused  to  employ 
slaveholding  missionaries.] 

A communication  presented  by  Eld.  Sawyer  proposed  the 
folloAving : 

“ Resolved,  That  in  the  secession  of  Southern  Baptists  from  the  Baptist 
Triennial  Convention,  we  recognize  a division  between  free  and  slavehold- 
ing missions,  which  we  wish,  on  the  grounds  of  Christian  principle,  to 
remain  perpetual,  as  to  the  American  Baptist  Missionary  Union.” 

The  Resolution  was  not  adopted. 

“ Many  have  blamed  the  Free  Mission  Society,  because  it 
did  not  disband  at  the  formation  of  this  Union.”  But  why 
should  it  disband  ? Should  it  do  so,  a re-union  of  the  North 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM.  505 

vith  the  South,  in  support  of  slaveholding  missionaries,  would 
lot,  probably,  be  long  delayed. 

“ Ever  desirous  of  union  with  their  brethren  of  the  North,  the  Free  Mis- 
ionists  sent  an  address  to  the  ‘ Union,’  at  its  second  Annual  Meeting  at 
. Troy,  May,  1848.  It  was  with  difficulty  that  an  opportunity  was  gained,  of 
presenting  it  to  the  Body.  When  it  had  been  presented  and  read,  immedi- 
itely  a motion  was  made  to  lay  it  on  the  table.  The  motion  prevailed,  one 
pr  two  voting  in  the  negative.-’ — lb.  p.  171-180. 

“ The  Union,”  by  a vote,  constituted  the  members  of  the 
Triennial  Convention  life  members  of  the  Union  : and  this  in- 
cludes some  slaveholders. — lb.  p.  201. 

“ At  the  first  anniversary  of  ‘ the  Union’  at  Cincinnati,  five 
members  are  set  down  from  Kentucky.  The  Banner  and  Pio- 
neer (a  Southern  Baptist  paper,)  calls  them  ‘ our  representa- 
tives.’ "—lb.  p.  207. 

Eld.  J.  Gr.  Binney,  formerly  pastor  of  the  Savannah  Church, 
Georgia,  and  highly  eulogized  in  the  address  of  the  Southern 
Convention,  is  sustained  by  the  A.  B.  M.  Union  as  Superin- 
tendent of  the  institution  for  training  native  Missionaries. — 
lb.  p.  168. 

“ Finally,  the  ‘ Union’  has  maintained  slaveholding  in  its 
Indian  Missions,  up  to  the  present  time  (1850).” — lb.  p.  216. 

The  fact  that  the  Baptist  Cherokee  and  Choctaw  Churches 
were  slaveholding,  was  alluded  to,  in  the  proceedings  of  “ the 
American  Board,”  at  Worcester,  in  1844,  and  again  at  Brook- 
lyn, in  1845.  Thus  countenanced  by  Baptist  example,  they 
•felt  sustained  in  their  own  position. — lb.  p.  249-253. 

These  churches  came  under  care  of  the  “ Union.” 

At  the  anniversary  of  the  A.  B.  M.  Union  in  Philadelphia,  May,  1849, 
“Eld.  Colver  rose  and  declared  in  the  presence  of  the  whole  Board,  that  the 
Cherokee  churches  were  sanctioning  slaveholding.” — lb.  p.  252. 

After  much  effort,  a Report  of  the  Committee  was  obtained, 
touching  lightly  on  the  subject,  speaking  of  it  as  a rumor , and 
saying  that  they  were  “ taking  measures  to  ascertain  the  facts 
of  the  case.”  But  the  facts  appear  to  have  been  sufficiently 
ascertained  ! — lb.  p.  253-268. 


506 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


The  Baptist  Home  Mission  Society  survived  the  Tri 
ennial  Convention  and  the  Foreign  Board,  notwithstanding 
the  secession  of  slaveholders.  But  its  character,  like  that  ol 
the  newly  organized  “ Union,”  seems  to  run  in  the  old  chan 
nel.  Like  the  “ Union,”  it  is  controlled,  mainly,  if  not  wholly 
by  the  northern  leaders  of  the  Baptist  sect,  who  are  in  dost 
fellowship  with  slaveholders,  but  have  no  sympathy  with 
abolitionists — except  with  those  who  co-operate  with  them,  ir 
preference  to  the  “ Free  Mission  Society.” 

“ In  Hew  York,  1846,  a new  Constitution  was  presented 
and  adopted.  The  chief  change  was  the  casting  off  of  the. 
auxiliaries,”  the  northern  as  well  as  the  southern.  In  a cir- 
cular to  the  Baptist  churches  and  associations,  composing  the 
Baptist  Missionary  Convention  of  the  State  of  Hew  York, 
written  by  Eld.  Wheelock,  agent  of  the  society,  the  reason  as- 
signed for  this  change  was,  that  attempts  had  been  made  “ in 
some  quarters  to  control  the  parent  society,  about  matters  of 
local  policy,  concerning  which  there  were  different  opinions. 
That  which  brought  the  evil  to  a crisis  was  the  Slave  Contro- 
versy.” By  cutting  off  auxiliaries  and  delegations,  the  Board 
became  independent  of  the  people,  and  their  voice  was  hushed. 
In  other  respects,  the  new  Constitution  took  no  new  ground 
on  the  slave  question. — lb.  p.  307-318,  19. 

“ Elder  N.  Colver  gave  notice,  that  at  the  next  annual  meeting  he  should 
move,  so  to  alter  the  Constitution  as  to  instruct  the  Missionaries  of  the  So- 
ciety not  to  administer  baptism  to  adhering  slaveholders,  nor  the  ordinances 
to  a slaveholding  church.” 

In  1847  the  matter  was  called  up,  and  laid  over  again,  till 
1848,  when,  it  was  indefinitely  postponed. 

And  yet,  it  is  asserted  that  “ the  society  has  cut  loose  from 
slavery  !” — lb.  308. 

The  Society  and  its  Reports  maintain  studied  silence  on  the 
subject  of  slavery.  It  has  a large  number  of  slaveholding  life 
members  or  life  directors,  whose  names  are  given  in  the  “ Facts 
for  Baptist  Churches.”  “ The  number  of  members  in  the 
Slave  States  is  two  hundred  and  eighty-five.” — lb.  p.  316-18. 

Mr.  J.  Finch,  a slaveholder,  was  a missionary  of  the  Society, 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


507 


a 1846,  and  the  term  of  his  appointment  did  not  expire  till 
st  Feb.,  1847.  From  the  Report  of  1848,  it  is  evident  that 
he  Society  was  in  the  receipt  of  slaveholders’  funds. — lb.  p. 

11-13. 

The  American  and  Foreign  Bible  Society  also  continues 
ts  former  position.  It  receives  slaveholders  to  membership, 
nd  says  nothing  against  the  laws  or  the  usages  which  with- 
lold  bibles  from  slaves. 

The  “ Baptist  Banner  and  Pioneer,”  of  Kentucky,  one  of  the  most  bit- 
er and  vindictive  of  all  the  southern  religious  papers,  in  1846,  said — 

“The  Am.  and  Foreign  Bible  Society  may  now  be  regarded  as  the  only 
igamentthat  binds  the  North  and  the  South  in  union,  and  we  trust  that  this 
lond  will  not  be  infracted.” 

It  was  not  the  “ only ” ligament,  but  it  was  a prominent  one. 
in  1848  the  annual  report  showed  the  receipt*  of  $6,753  53 
dom  the  slave  states. — lb.  p.  333,  4. 

In  1849,  while  the  choice  of  officers  was  pending,  a motion 
that  the  nominating  Committee  should  report  no  names  of 
slaveholders,  was  negatived,  and  slaveholders  were  accord- 
ingly elected. — lb.  p.  337,  8. 

The  American  Baptist  Free  Mission  Society,  organized 
in  1843,  admits  no  slaveholding  members,  nor  any  who  do 
not  possess  “an  acknowledged  Christian  character.”  It  is 
“ amenable  to  the  Churches,  and  earnestly  invites  them  to 
control  its  affairs  by  its  annual  delegations.”  It  recognizes  no 
distinction  founded  on  color.  Its  plan  embraces  both  Foreign 
and  Domestic  Missions — also  Bible  and  Tract  operations.  It 
has  a Mission  in  Haiti,  another  in  Canada,  others  at  the  W est, 
and  contemplates  missions  in  several  portions  of  the  South. — 
President  of  the  Society,  Harvey  Hawes,  Maine  ; Correspond- 
ing Secretary,  Eld.  C.  P.  Grosvenor,  McGrawsville,  Cortland 
Co.,  N.  Y. ; Treasurer,  George  Curtiss,  Utica,  FT.  Y. 

The  FTew-York  Central  College,  at  McGrawsville,  (FT. 
Y.)  incorporated  in  1848,  is  an  institution  “ pledged  to  the 
morality  of  anti-slavery,”  knows  no  distinction  of  color,*  and 


* In  another  connection,  similar  mention  might  have  been  made  of  the  College 


508  GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 

welcomes  accomplished  colored  Professors,  as  well  as  student 
It  originated  with  the  founders  of  the  Free  Mission  Societ ' 
as  a part  of  their  movement. 

Whether  Baptist  abolitionists  will  be  able  to  maintain  thej 
free  movements  without  separating  from  pro-slavery  influence 
in  local  churches  and  in  associations,  remains  to  be  seen.  Bi 
they  deserve  much  credit  for  their  efficient  labors,  hitherto,  i 
the  cause  of  Free  Missions.  If  the  other  Baptist  Mission 
should  ever  be  divorced  from  slavery,  it  will  be  in  consequenc 
of  their  efforts,  and  especially  of  their  persevering  support  o 
the  Free  Mission  Society. 


at  Oberlin,  but  the  Institution  is  of  too  long  standing  to  need  a particular  notice 
Oneida  Institute,  at  Whitesboro,  N.  Y.,  while  it  existed,  and  under  the  Presidenc; 
of  Beriah  Green,  vwis  thoroughly  anti-slavery  in  its  character. 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


509 


CHAPTER  XLI. 

THE  ANTI-SLAVERY  SOCIETIES — THEIR  RELATION  TO  POLITI- 
CAL AND  CHURCH  ACTION. 

Limited,  yet  appropriate  labor  of  the  National  Anti-Slavery  Societies — Reasons  why 
their  operations  became  more  circumscribed — American  and  Foreion  A.  S.  So- 
ciety— Its  course  and  policy — American  Anti-Slavery  Society  since  the  division 
in  1840 — Its  exclusive  claims  and  proscription  of  other  organizations — Early  indi- 
cations of  its  policy,  political  and  ecclesiastical — Albany  Convention  of  1839 — 
Tone  of  the  Liberator  in  Jan.,  1840 — Of  the  National  Anti-Slavery  Standard,  after 
the  division — Solution  of  an  enigma. 

"While  these  political  and  ecclesiastical  agitations  were  in 
progress,  it  will  readily  be  seen — as  might  have  been  antici- 
pated beforehand — that  the  two  Anti-Slavery  Societies  and 
their  auxiliaries  could  occupy,  in  respect  to  those  agitations, 
only  a subordinate  position.  Each  political  and  each  ecclesi- 
astical movement  would  be  carried  on  by  those  more  immedi- 
ately interested  in  it,  while  the  Societies,  as  such,  were  not 
prepared  to  recommend,  nor  adapted  to  carry  forward,  any 
particular  measures  of  political  or  church  action. 

And  yet,  they  were  not  left  altogether  without  a field  of 
appropriate  and  beneficial  action.  Though  moral  considera- 
tions were  by  no  means  out  of  place,  in  a political  movement, 
(as  politics  should  be  founded  on  ethics)  and  though  the  moral 
bearings  of  slavery  would,  of  course,  come  directly  under  re- 
view in  a discussion  of  the  Church  question,  yet  an  appeal 
having  no  direct  reference  either  to  the  religious  sects  or  to  the 
political  parties,  would  be  of  great  service,  and  be  well  adapt- 
ed to  exert  an  influence  on  many  minds  unduly  sensitive 
when  the  course  of  their  sects  or  parties  is  called  in  question. 
The  Anti-slavery  Societies,  therefore,  in  the  measure  of  their 


510 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


limited  means,  and  in  proportion  to  the  wisdom  and  efficienc 
of  their  management,  continued  to  urge  forward  the  gener:' 
cause.  Yet,  owing  to  their  dissensions,  and  other  causes,  thei 
usefulness  has  been,  in  a degree,  circumscribed,  and  the  Stat 
and  local  auxiliaries  of  the  two  rival  national  societies  hav 
either  become  extinct,  or  have  fallen  into  a state  of  compart 
tive  decline. 

THE  AMERICAN  AND  FOREIGN  ANTI-SLAVERY  SOCIETY — IT 
COURSE  AND  POLICY. 

Since  its  organization,  in  18-10,  this  Society  has  pursued  ai 
equable  and  steady  course.  If  it  has  not  been  a pioneer  oi 
new  aggressive  movements,  ecclesiastical  or  political,  it  ha: 
not  chosen  the  policy  of  interposing  obstacles  to  them.  I 
has  been  conducted  by  those  who  honestly  consider  themselve: 
in  occupancy  of  the  original  ground,  and  in  the  practice  o: 
the  early  usages  of  the  American  Anti-Slavery  Society,  at  its 
organization,  in  1833.  Though  this  will  be  controverted  by 
the  leaders  of  the  rival  Society,  an  examination  and  compari- 
son of  documents  would  perhaps  exhibit  as  near  an  approxi- 
mation to  that  ground  as  could  be  exhibited  elsewhere.  If 
the  strict  letter  of  the  old  Society’s  Constitution  does  not  de- 
scribe their  course  on  the  position  of  females,  the  early  usages 
of  the  Society  may  be  pleaded  as  their  precedent.  Its  leading 
members  would  not,  perhaps,  claim,  that  they  hold  precisely 
the  same  views  that  they  once  held,  concerning  distinct  politi- 
cal action.  As  a Society,  or,  as  a Committee,  they  have  had 
little  or  nothing  to  say,  pro  or  con,  in  respect  to  distinct  po- 
litical or  ecclesiastical  organizations  of  abolitionists.  Yet  their 
annual  reports,  from  time  to  time,  have  embodied  important 
political  and  ecclesiastical  records,  with  interesting  and  valua- 
ble statistical  information  connected  with  slavery,  and  with 
the  progress  of  the  anti-slavery  cause.  However  violently 
they  may  have  been  denounced  by  another  class  of  abolition- 
ists, whatever  they  may  have  failed  to  undertake  or  to  accom- 
plish, whatever  differences  of  opinion  may  be  entertained  in 
respect  to  the  division  in  1840,  or  in  respect  to  their  course 
afterwards,  impartial  history  will  give  them  an  honorable 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


511 


dace  among  the  sincere  and  laborious  friends  of  the  enslaved. 
The  writings  of  William  Jay  will  ever  retain  a high  place  in 
:he  anti-slavery  literature  of  his  age  and  nation,  and  the 
leaseless  vigilance  and  untiring  activity  of  Lewis  Tappan  will 
eave  their  marks  upon  every  year  and  month  of  anti-slavery 
arogress.  Mo  power  of  party  prejudice,  no  narrow  bigotry, 
lot  even  connected  with  the  most  signal  services  and  brilliant 
exploits  in  the  cause  of  freedom,  will  ever  be  able  successful- 
ly  to  write  down  such  names,  along  with  those  of  their  asso- 
ciates, Rev.  Simeon  S.  Jocelyn,  Rev.  Theodore  S.  Wright,  Dr. 
J.  W.  Pennington,  &c.  &c.,  as  recreants  to  the  anti-slavery 
cause.  As  there  are  limits  to  the  dissensions  of  earnest  re- 
formers, so  there  must  also  be  limits  to  their  power  of  crip- 
pling and  injuring  one  another,  by  unjust  accusations. 

AMERICAN  ANTI-SLAVERY  SOCIETY — ITS  COURSE  AFTER  THE 
DIVISION  OF  1840. 

This  Society,  after  the  division  of  1840,  retaining  the  same 
Constitution  and  the  same  name  as  before,  claimed  to  occupy 
its  original  position,  as  at  its  organization  in  1833,  and  not 
only  regarded  the  new  Society  as  “ schismatic  ” but  stigma- 
tized it  as  untrue  to  the  cause.  More  than  this.  The  Liberty 
party,  distinct  in  its  origin  and  in  its  peculiarities,  as  has  been 
shown,  from  the  American  and  Foreign  Anti-Slavery  Society, 
has  been  perseveringly  identified  with  it,  in  these  representa- 
tions, and  both  together  have  been  characterized  as  “ a hateful 
form  of  pro-slavery,”  originating  in  a desire  to  shelter  the 
pro-slavery  churches,  to  cripple  “ the  only  efficient  abolition- 
ists,” and  to  crowd  off  woman  from  the  sphere  of  anti-slavery 
activity. 

Had  these  things  been  said  only  by  a few  individuals,  on 
their  own  responsibility,  or  on  the  spur  of  an  exciting  mo- 
ment, the  circumstance  might  need  little  or  no  notice  in  our 
records.  But  it  is  not  so.  The  repetition  of  these  charges 
has  been  incessant,  on  both  sides  of  the  Atlantic.  It  has  been 
the  theme  of  lecturers  and  agents,  has  been  embodied  in  reso- 
lutions, addresses,  and  annual  reports,  and  has  occupied 


512 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


columns  upon  columns  of  periodicals  devoted  to  the  interest 
of  the  Society.  So  prominent  a part  of  the  Society’s  opera' 
tions,  has  it  been,  to  propagate  and  repeat  these  representa' 
tions,  that  the  historical  view  of  the  Society  that  should  fai 
to  give  this  feature  of  it  a corresponding  prominence,  woulc 
fail  to  record  truthfully  its  history. 

And  since  this  leading  feature  of  the  Society  must  needs  b( 
noticed,  including  the  corresponding  claim  that  the  America: 
Anti-Slavery  Society  and  its  auxiliaries  represent  “ the  onlj 
genuine  abolitionists  in  the  country,”  it  becomes  needful,  as  2 
matter  of  historical  integrity,  to  record  morp  minutely  thar 
would  otherwise  be  requisite,  the  course  of  a Society  setting 
up  such  exclusive  claims.*  While  we  give  due  credit  for  the 
important  anti-slavery  labors  of  Mr.  Garrison  and  his  asso- 
ciates, before  and  since  the  division,  we  shall  be  compelled  toj 
record  some  particulars — both  in  respect  to  their  political  and 
ecclesiastical  position — which  may  throw  light  on  the  validity, 
of  their  exclusive  claims. 

Their  course  since  the  division  of  the  Society,  and  the  or- 
ganization of  the  Liberty  party,  in  1840,  should  be  studied 
in  connection  with  the  position  held  by  them  at  that  time  and 
for  some  time  previous. 

It  has  already  been  seen  that  Mr.  Garrison  and  his  friends 
had  taken  their  stand  against  voting,  not  on  account  of  the 
pro-slavery  character  of  the  Federal  Constitution,  but  on  ac- 
count of  their  principles  as  “Hon-Resistants”  in  respect  to 
compulsory  civil  government  and  penal  law. 


* The  very  last  “ Annual  Report  of  the  Massachusetts  Anti-Slavery  Society," 
dated  January,  1852  (page  48),  designates  its  partisans  as  “the  only  efficient  anti- 
slavery  men”  in  America — and  represents  the  “ New  organization”  (meaning  the 
American  and  Foreign  Anti-Slavery  Society)  as  having  “ sprung  into  existence  for 
the  protection  of  pro-slavery  churches.”  It  speaks  of  “ the  Apostacy  of  1840.”  It 
uses  still  more  offensive  language,  which  we  will  not  repeat,  and  applies  opprobrious 
epithets  to  distinguished  abolitionists  on  both  sides  of  the  Atlantic,  by  name.  Since 
the  Report  reached  us,  we  have  heard  a lecturer  of  the  American  A.  S.  Society  use 
similar  language,  expressly  including  in  his  remarks  “ the  Liberty  party,”  and  boast- 
ing that  he  and  his  associates  .had  “ broken  it  down” — threatening  also  that  they 
would  break  down  an  Anti-Slavery  Society  then  in  process  of  organizing,  unless  it 
would  become  auxiliary  to  the  American  A.  S.  Society. 


SLAVERY  AJS'D  FREEDOM. 


513 


It  was  about  the  same  time,  if  we  correctly  remember,  that, 
1 connection  with  his  new  views  of  the  Sabbath,  Mr.  Garri- 
m threw  out  hints  in  disparagement  of  the  commonly  re- 
vived ideas  of  the  Ministry  and  the  Church.  The  pro-slavery 
osition  and  the  authoritative  tone  of  leading  ministers  in 
lassachusetts  and  else  wife  re,  must  doubtless  be  charged  with 
o small  share  of  the  responsibility  of  giving  rise  to  these 
lews  and  occasions  for  the  manifestation  of  them.  To  some 
xtent,  they  may  have  grown  out  of  corresponding  estimates 
f civil  government.  Be  this  as-  it  may,  the  distaste  appears 
a have  been  entertained  against  the  institutions  themselves, 
nd  not  merely  against  pro-slavery  influences  and  action  in 
hem. 

At  an  Anti-slavery  Convention  in  1839  or  ’40,  Stephen  S. 
Aster,  a Garrison  abolitionist,  introduced  into  an  Anti-slavery 
Convention  a resolution  denominating  the  American  Churches 
, “ brotherhood  of  thieves.”  To  “ come  out  ” from  pro-slavery 
hurches  was  soon  insisted  upon  by  Mr.  Foster  and  others  as 
he  duty  of  the  abolitionists  connected  with  them.  We  do 
lot  remember  that  Mr.  Garrison  expressed  any  dissent,  and 
he  general  tone  of  his  paper  was  in  harmony  with  it. 

Yet,  at  the  Albany  Convention,  in  July,  1839,  as  before 
loticed,  the  partisans  of  Mr.  Garrison,  in  his  presence,  and 
vithout  his  dissent,  objected  to  a distinct  political  party, 
hat  it  would  lead  to  similar  divisions  in  the  churches,  and  to 
lew  ecclesiastical  organizations  by  abolitionists. 

Again,  January  31,  1840,  (before  the  organization  of  the 
Liberty  party  or  the  division  of  the  American  Anti-slavery 
Society)  Mr.  Garrison,  in  his  Liberator,  in  reply  to  “ Gerrit 
Smith  on  political  action,”  held  the  following  language: 

“ If  we  must  have  a new  political  party  to  abolish  slavery,  must  we  not 
ilso  have  a new  religious  sect  for  the  same  purpose  1 Is  the  necessity 
greater  in  the  one  case  than  in  the  other  I Yet,  who,  among  abolition- 
ists is  prepared  for  such  a measure  ?*  As  to  the  right  of  abolitionists 


* The  “ measure"’  had  already  been  a subject  of  earnest  consultation  in  Albany, 
the  July  previous,  in  the  morning  prayer-meetings,  as  before  noticed. 


33 


514 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


to  withdraw  from  the  existing  sects  and  start  a rival  one  to  them  all,  it  is  ; 
indisputable  as  it  is  to  organize  themselves  into  a separate  political  part’ 
But  such  a course,  we  are  persuaded,  whether  pursued  politically  c 

RELIGIOUSLY,  WOULD  BE  PRODUCTIVE  OF  SERIOUS  MISCHIEF  TO  THE  ANT 

slavery  cause.  Nor  is  it  demanded  by  anything  in  the  history  of  th; 
cause.  The  progress  of  abolitionism  is  strong  and  sure  ; and,  by  its  o\v 
inherent  power  must  and  will  overcome, *ere  long,  both  Church  an 
State,  as  now  organized.” 

Comparing  together  these  apparently  conflicting  position 
of  Mr.  Garrison  and  his  friends,  we  can  reconcile  them  onl 
by  supposing  that  they  wished  abolitionists  to  “ come  out 
from  the  pro-slavery  churches,  but  were  not  pleased  with  tb 
prospect  of  their  organizing  anti-slavery  ones.  The  non 
voting  policy,  and  the  absence  of  a distinct  anti-slavery  part 
in  politics,  would  harmonize  with  this.  “ The  progress  o: 
abolitionism”  would  then  “overcome  the  Church  and  Stati 
as  now  organized,”  but  without  producing  any  new  organiza 
tions  of  them.  We  are  bound  in  all  charity  to  believe,  or 
their  own  testimony,  that  such  earnest  reformers  would  seeli 
to  guide  and  shape  reformations  in  accordance  with  their  owr 
views. 

The  “National  Anti-slavery  Standard” — the  organ  of  the 
American  Anti-slavery  Society,  soon  after  the  division  in 
1840 — held  a language  equally  revolutionary — equally  con- 
servative. The  very  foundations  of  society  were  to  be  over- 
turned. Yet  the  political  parties  must  not  be  disturbed  ! 

“ See  if  the  cause  of  the  division  be  not  closely  connected  with  the  na- 
ture of  the  reform  itself.  Anti-slavery  is  a word  of  mighty  power.  Oh ! 
it  strikes  at  the  very  corner-stones  and  keystones  of  society.  It 
aims  a death-blow  at  long  cherished  habits  and  opinions.  It  robs  life  of  all 
factitious  honors  ; but  above,  and  more  than  all,  it  would  put  an  end  for- 
ever TO  THE  UNRIGHTEOUS  DOMINATION  OF  ‘ THE  CHURCH.’  It  WOULD  UN- 
SEAT POPULAR  THEOLOGY  from  its  throne,  break  down  the  barriers 
of  sect,  and,  in  short,  resolve  society  into  its  natural  elements,  saving 
all  the  real  progress  that  has  been  made  in  the  scale  of  improvement.  Here 
is  the  true  issue  on  which  division  in  our  ranks  is  made  up.” 

But  in  the  same  paper  there  appeared  also  the  following : 

“ The  greatest  danger,  in  our  opinion,  is  the  organizing  of  a third  polit- 
ical party,  striving  to  BREAK  DOWN  political  organizations.” 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


515 


At  this  same  time,  and  afterwards,  the  Standard  condemned 
iti-slavery  church  secession  and  re-organization,  as  being  a 
art  of  the  same  policy  that  organized  the  Liberty  party.  It 
jpeated  this  in  particular  reference  to  the  forming  of  an  inde- 
endent  anti-slavery  church  in  Utica,  of  which  Alvan  Stew- 
rt,  a pioneer  of  the  Liberty  party,  was  a member. 

Now,  how  are  we  to  decipher  and  harmonize  all  this  ? Anti- 
'avery,  after  the  model  of  the  “ Standard,”  is  to  “ strike  at 
je  keystones  of  society,”  but  it  dreads,  as  the  “ greatest  dan- 
er,”  the  breaking  down  of  the  old  pro-slavery  political 
arties  ! It  is  to  “ unseat  popular  theology,”  and  “ put  an 
nd  forever  to  the  unrighteous  domination  of  the  church” — 
ut  there  must  be  no  secessions  with  a view  to  organize  anti- 
lavery  and  reformatory  churches  ! 

We  see  only  one  solution  of  the  enigma.  If  it  were  deter- 
nined  to  “ put  an  end  forever”  to  all  civil  and  ecclesiastical 
nstitutions,  and  if  their  unhappy  and  unholy  connection  in 
his  country  with  slavery  was  to  be  improved  as  the  excuse 
.nd  occasion  for  doing  this,  then  the  course  of  the  official 
‘Standard”  becomes  at  once  intelligible  and  consistent.  For 
lothing  could  so  effectually  defeat  the  desired  operation  as 
he  united  and  successful  efforts  of  abolitionists  to  redeem 
hose  institutions  from  disgrace  and  subversion  by  divorcing 
,hem  from  slavery,  and  wielding  them  for  its  overthrow, 
ivhich  could  only  be  done  by  organizing  new  churches  and 
Dolitical  parties,  if  the  existing  ones  could  not  be  reclaimed. 

A resolution  of  Mr.  Garrison,  adopted  by  the  Middlesex 
dounty  Anti-Slavery  Society,  about  this  time,  demanded  that 
“ the  alliance  that  now  subsists  between  the  religious  sects  and 
political  parties  of  the  North  and  South,  be  INSTANTLY 
BROKEN  UP.” 

The  principle  here  laid  down  would  require  abolitionists  to 
secede  “ instantly”  from  the  existing  parties  and  sects.  And 
if  organized  political  and  church  action  were  to  be,  for  any 
purposes,  continued,  it  would  require  them  to  re-organize. 
But  Mr.  Garrison  was  strongly  opposed  to  the  efforts  making 
in  that  direction.  It  seems  to  follow,  that  he  required  of  all 


516 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


abolitionists  that  they  should  act  in  accordance  with  his  pri 
ciples  concerning  politics  and  religion,  by  virtually  withdrar 
ing  from  the  Church  and  the  State. 

“ Here,”  according  to  the  ‘ Standard,’  “ is  the  true  issue  c 
which  division  in  our  ranks  is  made  up,”  or  its  language  ha 
to  us,  no  intelligible  meaning. 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


517 


CHAPTER  XLII. 

HE  AMERICAN  ANTI-SLAVERY  SOCIETY — ITS  FURTHER  COURSE 
ON  POLITICAL  ACTION. 

olitical  element  in  the  division  of  the  Societies — Facts  in  illustration — Position  of 
“ Non-Resistants” — Position  of  abolitionists  in  the  old  parties  remaining  with  the 
Society — Course  of  Mr.  Garrison — “ Moral  suasion”  abolitionists — Resolutions  at 
Worcester  and  Springfield — Presidential  election  of  1840 — Subsequent  develop- 
ments—Opposition  to  the  Liberty  Party — State  Election  in  New  York — Politioal 
ethics. 

Two  resolutions  of  the  Quarterly  Meeting  of  the  Old  Mas- 
achusetts  Anti-Slavery  Society,  some  time  beforehand,  were 
inderstood  to  portend  a revolution  of  some  sort  in  the  Amer- 
can  Anti-Slavery  Society,  in  May,  1840.  The  previous 
mnual  meeting  had  decided  in  favor  of  women’s  voting,  yet 
;he  officers  had  not  resigned,  and  the  business  of  the  Society 
was  going  on  as  usual.  What  elements  then,  or  what  indica- 
tions of  a revolution,  were  foreseen  ? 

At  the  World’s  Anti-Slavery  Convention  in  London,  soon 
after  the  division  in  America,  the  question  of  admitting  women 
to  participate  in  the  proceedings,  was  introduced  by  some  of 
the  American  delegation.  The  proposition,  being  accounted 
an  innovation  on  the  customs  of  British  abolitionists,  including 
“ Friends,”*  did  not  succeed,  whereupon  Mr.  Garrison  and 
some  others  declined  taking  seats. 

During  the  discussion  of  the  question,  Wendell  Phillips, 


* It  will  be  remembered  that  “ Friends,”  both  in  America  and  England,  transact 
their  ecclesiastical  business  in  separate  meetings  of  males  and  females — not  by  organ- 
izing them  together.  This  usage  probably  gave  rise  to  the  separate  organization  of 
male  and  female  Anti-Slavery  Societies  in  both  hemispheres. 


518 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


Esq.,  of  Boston,  a delegate  associated  with.  Mr.  Garrison 
“denied  that  the  WOMAN  question  had  occasioned  the-latl 
division  in  New  York.  lie  said  that  it  was  politics  thi 
occasioned  it.” 

Without  denying,  with  Mr.  Phillips,  that  the  “ woman  que;  1 
tion”  was  one  occasion  of  division,  we  may  agree  with  hir 
that  “ politics ” had  a large  share  in  the  transaction — the  politic 
of  those  who  wished  in  some  way  to  wield  civil  governmer  ; 
against  slavery — the  politics  of  those  who  foresaw  in  this  th 
disturbance  of  their  political  parties — and  the  politics  (perhap 
we  should  say  the  anti-politics)  of  those  who  desired  no  corr 
pulsory  civil  government  at  all. 

The  combination,  for  the  time  being,  between  the  two  latte 
against  the  first,  appears  to  have  presented  the  political  ele  : 
ment  of  division,  and  their  union  in  the  American  Anti-Sk  1 
very  Society,  after  the  division,  furnishes  the  key  to  th  ^ 
political  manifestations  that  followed,  including  the  bittel; 
hostility  towards  the  Liberty  party  for  which  that  Society  wa 
distinguished.  With  a “rank  and  file”  of  whig  and  demo! 
cratic  abolitionists,  wedded  to  their  old  parties,  the  Societ'; 
was  “ officered,”  to  some  extent,  Avith  Non-Resistants,  avIk 
would  have  preferred  to  witness  in  their  ranks  no  voting  a 
all,  but  who  Avere  unfortunately  led  to  regard  Avith  more  fori 
bearance  the  pro-slavery  voting  of  the  Avhig  and  democratic 
members  of  their  own  Societ}r,  than  the  rigid  anti-slaven 
voting  of  the  members  of  the  Liberty  party. 

The  division  in  the  Society  at  New  York,  and  the  organ! 
zation  of  the  Liberty  party,  took  place,  it  will  be  borne  ir 
mind,  in  the  spring  of  1840,  on  the  eve  of  the  Presidents 
election  of  that  year,  and  in  the  midst  of  stirring  preparations 
for  the  contest.  The  resolution  adopted  by  the  Garrisonian 
majority,  placing  the  support  of  the  pro-slavery  and  the  anti 
slavery  candidates  on  equal  grounds  of  disapprobation,  has 
already  been  mentioned.  This  was  the  beginning  of  a polit-1 
ical  course  for  a long  time  pursued  by  that  Society.  It  was 
the  beginning,  but  not  the  consummation ; for  before  election 
day  arrived,  it  was  openly  taught  that  the  securing  of  votes 


SLAVERY  AJfD  FREEDOM. 


519 


}r  Harrison  and  Tyler  was  less  to  be  deplored  than  the  secur- 
ig  of  votes  for  Birney  and  Earle.  This  was  the  language 
('  N.  P.  Rogers,  one  of  their  leading  editors,  and  of  the  agents 
ad  lecturers  of  the  Society. 

The  annual  meeting  of  the  Massachusetts  Anti-Slavery  So- 
ety,  in  January  or  February,  1810,  had  said  nothing  against 

■ e support  of  Harrison  and  Tyler,  though  there  was  known 

■ be  a strong  tendency  of  the  majority  of  abolitionists  in  that 
;ate  to  support  them.  After  the  nomination  of  Birney  and 
arle,  by  the  Liberty  party,  in  April,  the  American  Anti- 
/a very  Society,  as  we  have  seen,  could  impartially  dissuade 
om  pro-slavery  and  from  anti-slavery  voting,  in  the  same 

Heath.  But  now,  a decided  preference,  as  a choice  of  evils, 
as  given  to  the  political  support  of  a slaveholder  over  an  abo- 
tionist  who  had  emancipated  his  slaves. 

The  action  of  the  great  majority  of  the  society  and  its  sup- 
orters  was  in  accordance  with  these  teachings.  Non-Resist- 
nts,  who,  on  the  ground  of  their  peculiar  views  of  civil 
overnment,  abstained  from  the  polls,  were  admitted  to  be  (as 
ire  have  seen)  but  a small  minority  of  the  society  and  of  its 
[jading  men — “less  than  an  hundredth  part  of  the  society”  in 
lassachusetts,  at  the  time  of  the  division,  there,  in  1889 — 
not  exceeding,”  in  1841,  or  ’42,  “ one  or  two  hundred  in 
11  Hew  England,”  and  still  more  sparse  in  the  other  States, 
ind  nothing,  at  that  time,  was  heard  of  abstaining  from  the 
•oils,  on  the  ground  of  the  pro-slavery  character  of  the  Fede- 
al  Constitution  or  the  Federal  Government.  The  vast  ma- 
ority  of  the  society  claiming  to  embody  “ the  only  true  aboli- 
ionists  of  the  country”  voted  either  for  Van  Buren  or  for 
larrison  and  Tyler,  opponents  of  abolitionism,  while  the  Li- 
berty party,  designated  by  them  as  “ apostates,”  voted  for  Bir- 
,iey,  the  emancipating  abolitionist. 

Some  of  their  active  and  official  members  were  earnestly 
m gaged  in  electioneering  for  a slaveholder.  A member  of 
he  “business  committee”  of  the  meeting  of  the  Massachusetts 
inti-Slavery  Society  just  now  mentioned,  having  assisted  to 
Rape  its  proceedings,  was  found,  not  long  afterwards,  a pro- 


520 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


minent  speaker  at  political  meetings,  in  support  of  Harriso 
and  Tyler. 

The  Executive  Board  of  the  same  Massachusetts  A.  S.  Sc 
ciety,  during  the  pendency  of  the  same  presidential  electior 
addressed  a letter  to  the  abolitionists  of  the  United  States 
against  independent  anti-slavery  nominations,  but  said  nothin; 
against  the  support  of  the  pro-slavery  candidates.  Bike  tli 
“ Standard,”  they  seem  to  have  felt  that  “ the  greatest  dange 
was  the  organization  of  a third  party,  striving  to  break  dowi 
political  organizations.” 

Soon  after  the  nomination  of  Birney,  in  April,  1840,  tht 
same  Massachusetts  State  A.  S.  Society,  held  a quarterly  meet 
ing,  and  adopted  six  labored  resolutions,  deprecating  the  sup 
port  of  Birney  and  Earle,  but  uttering  not  a word  against  the 
support  of  the  pro-slavery  candidates.  Nothing  was  said,  (at 
formerly)  of  “ scattering  votes”  at  State  or  National  elections, 
nor  in  favor  of  staying  away  from  the  polls.  Of  this  meeting, 
the  same  prominent  supporter  of  Harrison  and  Tyler*  was 
chairman.  The  proceedings  of  the  meeting  were  published  in 
the  Liberator  without  dissent,  accompanied  with  sarcastic  men- 
tion of  the  nomination  of  Birney,  which  was  spoken  of  as  “the 
Albany  farce.” — See  Liberator , of  April  17, 1840. 

Some  time  before  this,  (March  13)  Mr.  Garrison  labored,  in 
his  Liberator,  to  show  that  “it  is  most  unphilosophical  for  abo- 
litionists to  expend  much  time,  expense,  or  thought,  upon  the 
approaching  presidential  election,” — that  “ it  matters  very  little 
who  is  President ,”  because  there  is  no  probability  that  within 
four  years  there  will  be  a Congress  who  will  vote  for  the  abo- 
lition of  slavery  in  the  District  of  Columbia.  Yet  he  would 
have  abolitionists  bear  their  testimony  against  elevating  either 
of  the  candidates. 


* Mr.  Tyler  was  a slaveholder.  He  was  elected  Vice-President,  at  this  election, 
and,  in  consequence,  became  President  by  the  demise  of  President  Harrison.  His 
course,  as  President,  we  have  seen.  Gen.  Harrison,  by  his  public  speeches  at  Vin- 
eennes  and  Cheviot,  had  been  one  of  the  earliest  and  most  violent  opposers  of  aboli- 
tionists. By  this  means,  and  by  his  letters  to  southern  politicians,  he  had  gained 
southern  favor,  and  thus  he  became  the  Presidential  candidate  of  his  party. 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


521 


In  all  this,  we  heard  nothing  of  the  wickedness  of  voting 
under  the  pro-slavery  constitution.  We  saw  nothing  of  the 
motto  of  “ no  union  with  slaveholders.”  A close  union  with 
the  supporters  of  slaveholders  was  quite  evident,  nevertheless. 

The  previous  policy  of  “ questioning  the  candidates  ” of  the 
old  parties,  was  now,  by  general  consent,  laid  aside.  Liberty 
party  men  had-  candidates  of  their  own.  Non-Resistants  de- 
sired none.  And  other  abolitionists,  (whether  of  the  “ Old  ” 
or  the  “ New  ” organized  anti-slavery  societies,)  appeared  to 
be  tolerably  well  content  with  the  candidates  furnished  them 
by  their  old  political  parties.  Except  the  seven  thousand 
votes  polled  for  Birney  and  Earle  by  the  Liberty  party,  and 
perhaps  two  or  three  hundred  non-voting  Non-Resistants,* 
excepting,  also,  the  sect  called  “ Covenanters,”  who  never 
vote,  there  were  not,  probably,  any  considerable  number  of 
abolitionists  who  did  not,  at  that  election,  cast  pro-slavery 
votes. 

Now  was  the  noon-tide  glory  of  “ moral  suasion  ” abolition- 
ism, as  it  was  called.  “We  must  abolitionize  the  people,” 
said  the  advocates  of  this  doctrine,  and  all  will  come  right. 
And  again,  “ Do  not  bring  down  our  holy  cause,”  said  they, 
“into  the  dirty  waters  of  politics.”  These  had  a holy  horror 
of  the  Liberty  party.  They  preferred  the  “ Old  organization,” 
and  hastened  to  vote  for  the  pro-slavery  candidates  of  their 
old  parties. 

Let  it  not  be  inferred  that  Mr.  Garrison  and  those  of  his 
associates  who  were  thorough  abolitionists,  could  silently  wit- 
ness all  this,  to  the  close  of  the  contest,  without  a word  of 
rebuke.  It  was  not  so.  The  Old  Massachusetts  Anti-Slavery 
Society,  though  late  in  the  season,  at  Worcester,  October  6th, 
and  at  Springfield,  October  8th,  adopted  the  following,  from 
the  pen  of  Mr.  Garrison  : 

“ Resolved,  That  no  man  can  vote  for  William  H.  Harrison,  or  Martin 


* Some  who  called  themselves  Non-Resistants  were  scarcely  restrained  from  the 
polls,  when  election  day  came.  It  is  confidently  said  that  some  of  them  did  vote. 
Be  this  as  it  may,  the  political  preferences  and  influence  of  some  of  them  was  no 
secret. 


522 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


Van  Buren,  without  voting  directly  to  sustain  slavery,  and  he  who  votes  for 
slavery,  has  no  title  to  the  name  oe  an  abolitionist.” 

Mr.  Garrison  was  himself  again.  He  here  repeated  the  old 
anti-slavery  doctrine,  held  before  the  division — the  doctrine 
of  1838 — the  doctrine  that  compelled  voting  abolitionists  to 
form  the  Liberty  party.  Its  severe  but  just  censure  lighted 
upon  not  one  single  adhering  member  of  that  party,  accused 
as  that  party  was,  of  apostacy  from  genuine  abolitionism. 
But  it  fell,  like  a thunder-bolt,  upon  seven-eighths,  if  not  nine- 
tenths  of  the  members  of  the  American  Anti-Slavery  Society 
and  its  auxiliaries,  to  which  Mr.  Garrison  himself  belonged, 
and  which  claimed  then,  and  still  claims,  to  embody  or  repre- 
sent all  the  genuine  abolitionism  in  America. 

If  it  fell  equally  upon  a portion  of  the  rival  Society,  (the 
“ New  Organization  ”)  it  fell  only  upon  that  portion  of  it  that 
failed  to  come  into  the  Liberty  party,  thus  revealing  the  dis- 
tinction between  them,  and  also  the  affinity  of  political  ethics 
between  portions  of  the  New  Organization  and  the  Old. 

The  language  of  the  Besolution  justifies  the  estimate  we 
have  already  made  of  the  advice  previously  given,  in  the  op- 
posite direction. 

Such  a Resolution,  at  the  meetings  of  the  Society  in  the 
winter  and  spring,  consistently  carried  out,  and  not  neutral- 
ized by  contrary  teachings,  would  have  had  a salutary  effect, 
though  it  would  have  swelled  the  vote  of  the  Liberty  party. 
As  it  was,  it  came  too  late  to  prevent  the  mortifying  result 
already  described.  It  had  scarcely  reached  central  and  west- 
ern New-York,  ere  those  who  needed  it  had  either  deposited 
their  votes' or  had  committed  themselves  too  deeply  to  retract. 

Nor  did  the  infatuation  die  with  the  Presidential  contest. 
It  was  publicly  stated  and  never  denied,  that  two  lecturing 
agents  of  the  American  Anti-Slavery  Society,  professing  to 
be  non-resistants,  boasted,  afterwards,  that  they  had  saved 
thousands  of  votes  for  the  whig  party ; in  other  words,  for 
Harrison  and  Tyler.  It  is  known  that,  in  their  travels  they 
sought  out  whig  committees,  and  made  such  representations 
to  them  as  induced  them  to  subscribe  for  packages  of  the  “Na- 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


523 


tional  Anti-Slavery  Standard.”  “ No  union  with  slavehold- 
ers ” was  not,  then,  the  motto  of  that  paper,  nor  of  the  Society 
of  which  it  was  the  official  organ. 

A great  convention  of  “old  organization”  abolitionists  was 
held  at  Le  Roy,  N.  Y.,  January  6th  and  7th,  1841,  under  the 
auspices  of  the  Corresponding  Secretary  and  General  Agent 
of  the  Old  American  Anti-Slavery  Society.  The  proceedings 
were  published  in  more  than  nine  columns  of  the  National 
Anti-Slavery  Standard. 

“ The  largest  and  most  spirited  anti-slavery  Convention”  (say  the  editors) 
“ever  held  in  the  State  of  New  York.”  “ Several  hundred  delegates  were 
in  attendance,  and  acted  without  distinction  of  sex.  The  third  party  move- 
ment was  voted  down  by  a very  large  majority,  as  it  had  been  in  four  State 
Conventions  previously  in  that  State.”  “We  publish  the  proceedings 
entire.”  “ Send  it  to  the  four  winds,  that  it  may  do  the  work  of  primitive 
abolitionism  !” 

In  this  Convention,  as  appears  in  the  proceedings,  a Reso- 
lution was  introduced,  discussed,  amended,  and  put  into  vari- 
ous shapes,  upon  the  subject  of  voting  for  slaveholders,  but, 
finally,  the  Resolution  was  lost.  In  rejecting  it  the  Convention 
REFUSED  to  say , in  any  form , that  it  was  inconsistent  to  vote  for  a 
slaveholder  ! In  all  the  proceedings,  there  was  no  expres- 
sion of  regret  in  view  of  the  course  of  voting  abolitionists, 
except  those  who  voted  for  the  abolition  candidate,  Mr.  Birney. 
Among  the  letters  to  the  Convention,  read  and  published  as 
from  “ distinguished  abolitionists,”  deprecating  the  Liberty 
party,  were  several  from  zealous  supporters  of  Harrison  and 
Tyler. 

The  proceedings  of  this  Convention  were  hailed  in  the  Lib- 
erator as  a signal  triumph  of  the  American  Anti-Slavery  So- 
ciety over  the  Liberty  party  and  “ new  organization.” 

By  the  Liberator  and  the  National  Anti-Slavery  Standard 
it  was  apparently  assumed  as  a settled  axiom,  that  politics,  of 
necessity,  must  be  impure — that  they  must  be  conducted  on 
principles  of  mere  expediency,  and  that  moral  principle,  for 
the  time  being,  must  be  laid  aside.  They  derided  the  efforts 
of  the  Liberty  party,  its  lecturers  and  its  editors,  to  raise  the 


524 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


tone  of  political  morality,  to  teacli  the  duty  of  honest,  consci- 
entious, political  action,  to  be  performed  religiously,  in  the 
fear  of  God,  and  looking  to  him  for  assistance  and  direction  * 
Moral  action  and  political  action  were  spoken  of,  as  antago- 
nisms, that  cannot  exist  together,  or  be  reconciled. 

It  was  not  strange  that  those  who  thought  thus  of  political 
action,  and  then  undertook  to  direct  it,  should  realize,  in  the 
results,  the  appropriate  effects  of  their  own  theory.  He  is  not 
to  be  regarded  an  unsuccessful  operator  whose  work  comes  up 
to  his  ideal — his  model. 

In  the  Autumn  of  1842,  an  important  State  election  took 
place  in  the  State  of  Hew  York,  and  the  agents  of  the  Ame- 
rican Anti-Slavery  Society,  with  the  “ National  Anti-Slavery 
Standard,”  were  again  in  the  field,  in  opposition  to  the  Liber- 
ty party,  its  editors,  its  lecturers,  and  its  candidates. 

The  “ Standard”  of  July  7,  took  the  ground  that  abolition- 
ists should  not  insist  on  the  “ genuine”  abolition  of  those  for 
whom  they  were  called  upon  to  cast  their  votes.  They  were 
not  to  insist  on  “ filling  the  State  House  with  true  anti-slavery 
men.”  Instead  of  this,  they  were  advised  to  make  calcula- 
tions whether  or  no  “ fifty  men  who  have  a strong  motive  for 
obliging  abolitionists,”  would  not  do  us  more  service  than  a 
few  abolitionists  who  are  anti-slavery  to  the  back-bone  ?” 

The  comparison  here  instituted  describes  and  concedes  the 
distinction  between  the  candidates  of  the  Liberty  party,  and 
the  candidates  of  the  old  parties,  whom  other  voting  aboli- 
tionists would  have  to  support.  The  choice  was  between  the 
two,  and  the  suggestion  was  in  favor  of  the  latter. 

In  the  same  paper,  of  Sept.  29th,  an  effort  was  made  to  per- 
suade abolitionists  to  vote  for  a gubernatorial  candidate  who 
was  a partisan  of  Henry  Clay. 

u Politics  is  a game  of  expediency,  its  science  consists  in  a nice  calcula- 
tion of  present  availability.  Those  skilled  in  such  calculations  can  decide 


* “ ‘ Under  certain  circumstances,’  Mr.  Goodell  thinks,  ‘ that  the  days  of  approach- 
ing the  ballot-box,  and  of  preparing  for  its  solemn  duties,  might  be  set  apart  as  days 
of  fasting  and  prayer  to  Almighty  God,  by  those  who  are  accustomed  to  observo 
such  appointments.’  Pardon  us,  if  we  smile  at  this.” — Liberator,  March  20, 1840. 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


525 


for  themselves,  whether  Luther  Bradis’n,  as  Governor,  would  be  likely  to 
do  more  to  support  Henry  Clay,  than  Luther  Bradish,  as  a private  citizen.” 

It  might  have  been  added,  that  those  abolitionists  who  had 
openly  supported  Harrison  and  Tyler,  could  have  no  consci- 
entious scruples  against  supporting  Henry  Clay. 

In  the  same  paper,  of  the  same  date,  was  inserted,  without 
comment  or  dissent,  a long  letter  from  a Whig  statesman, 
William  Slade,  of  Vermont,  in  which  he  justifies  the  policy 
of  making  the  tariff  question  the  paramount  one,  for  the  time 
being,  instead  of  the  slave  question;  and  then  adds  as 
follows : 

“May  not  abolitionists  better  subserve  the  cause  of  abolition  by  thus 
aiding  to  secure  the  election  of  men  who  are  willing  to  take  moderate 
ground  against  slavery,  than  to  lose  their  influence,  as  to  present  practical 
purposes,  by  shutting  themselves  up  within  the  straightened  enclosure  of  a 
third  political  party  V 

Such  was  the  political  morality  inculcated  and  exemplified 
by  the  official  organ  of  the  American  Anti-Slavery  Society, 
up  to  the  autumn  of  1842,  on  the  eve  of  an  important  State 
election,  and  looking  forward  to  the  Presidential  campaign  of 
1844.  Posterity  will  compare  such  political  ethics  with  those 
of  the  Liberty  party,  and  decide  upon  the  claims  of  the  former 
to  represent  the  only  true  abolitionism  of  America,  and  whe- 
ther the  latter  gave  evidence  of  apostacy  from  the  anti-slavery 
cause,  in  not  acting  with  them. 


526 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


CHAPTER  XLIII. 

SECOND  REVOLUTION  IN  THE  POSITION  AIS^D  POLICY  OF  THE 
• AMERICAN  ANTI-SLAVERY  SOCIETY,  IN  1844. 

“ No  Union  with  Slaveholders” — The  Federal  Constitution  “ a covenant  with  death 
and  an  agreement  with  hell” — Import  of  the  “No  Union”  motto — Some  advan- 
tages of  this  new  position — Its  origin  and  history. 

Passing  over  an  intervening  space  of  about  one  year  and 
a half,  we  find  the  American  Anti-Slavery  Society,  at  its 
annual  meeting  in  May,  1844,  raising  the  flag  of  “No  Union 
with  Slaveholders,”*  demanding  a dissolution  of  the  Union, 


* It  has  not  always  been  easy  for  other  abolitionists  to  understand  precisely  what, 
and  how  much,  is  included  by  Mr.  Garrison  and  his  associates,  under  the  phrase, 
“ No  union  with  slaveholders.”  If  they  mean  only  a separation  of  the  non-slave- 
holding States  from  the  slave  States,  the  meaning  would  be  sufficiently  clear,  and 
the  proposal  deserves  attention.  But  such  a separation  would  not  be  a separation 
bettveen  the  pro-slavery  and  the  anti-slavery  portions  of  the  nation.  It  would 
leave  the  slaves,  free  colored  people  of  the  South,  and  many  of  their  white  friends 
on  the  South  side  of  the  line ; while  many  of  the  most  despotic  statesmen  and  ser- 
vile voters  would  remain  on  the  North  side.  It  would  leave  the  “ black  law”  legis- 
lation of  the  free  States  in  full  |prce.  Neither  morally  nor  politically  would  the 
geographical  line  of  division  describe  the  true  separation.  Appeals  sometimes  made 
in  favor  of  “ no  union  with  slaveholders,”  seem  to  overlook  this.  It  seems  to  have 
been  assumed  that  the  relation  of  a common  citizenship  between  a slaveholder  and 
a friend  of  liberty  is,  per  se,  a sinful  relation — that  it  is  wicked  to  sit  in  the  same 
Congress  where  a slaveholder  sits,  or  to  go  to  the  same  ballot-box  with  him.  This 
idea  would  accord  with  the  theory  of  no  civil  government.  Its  adoption  would 
render  civil  government  impossible,  so  long  as  there  remained  a wicked  lawless  man 
in  the  nation ; in  other  words,  so  long  as  a civil  government,  to  repress  crime,  is 
needed.  This  idea  also  assumes  that  civil  government  is  merely  a voluntary  associa- 
tion, into  which  the  citizen  may  enter,  or  not,  as  he  pleases.  This  too  accords  with 
the  non-government  theory,  and  its  advocates  doubtless  understand  themselves  as 
holding  no  political  connections  either  with  slaveholders , or  with  any  body  else.  The 
separation,  on  their  part,  involves  no  self-denial,  and  consists  in  no  new  or  dis- 
criminative act.  To  those  of  other  views,  who  hold  themselves  in  fact,  whether 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


527 


lenouncing  the  Federal  Constitution  as  pro-slavery,  “ a cove- 
lant  with  death,  and  an  agreement  with  hell,”  under  which  no 
ibolitionist  can  consistently  hold  office,  or  vote  for  another  to 
lold  office.  This  was  a memorable  revolution  in  the  Society 
md  its  policy. 

In  many  respects  there  wras  an  advantage  gained  by  the 
Society  in  taking  this  new  ground.  The  favorite  policy  of 
lot  voting  could  now  be  placed  on  an  anti-slavery  basis,  and 
Dpenly  urged  “ on  the  anti-slavery  platform,”  with  the  aid  of 
inti-slavery  funds,  instead  of  depending  upon  the  still  mod- 
erate number  of  “ Non-Eesistants,”  who  were  consistent 
enough  to  abandon  the  polls.  The  experiment  of  keeping 
ether  abolitionists  away  from  the  polls  had  proved,  thus  far, 
a manifest  failure.* *  The  anti-slavery  reputation  of  the  So- 
eiety,  as  well  as  the  interests  of  the  cause,  had  suffered  severely, 
and  the  lost  ground  must  be  regained.  The  startling  doctrines 
and  measures  thus  propounded  would  arrest  attention  and 
excite  discussion.  Instead  of  lagging  behind  the  Liberty 
party,  and  hanging  on  to  the  skirts  of  the  old  pro-slavery 
parties  and  their  slaveholding  candidates,  they  could  now 
claim  to  outstrip  them  in  the  march  of  separation  from  slave- 
holders, and  retort  upon  them  the  charge  of  inconsistency  in 
their  political  associations.!  How  far,  or  whether  at  all,  these 
considerations  had  weight,  we  pretend  not  to  say.  They 
naturally  suggest  themselves  on  a review  of  the  history.  The 
reader  will  judge. 

they  will  or  no,  a part  of  the  nation  they  reside  in,  some  of  their  appeals  have  there- 
fore no  force.  But  when  they  urge  the  duty  of  dissolving  the  Union  between  the 
free  and  slave  States,  on  the  ground  that  the  Union  upholds  slavery,  they  propound 
a serious  and  intelligible  question,  and  one  that  comes  home  to  the  conscience  and 
interests  of  every  northern  citizen. 

* So  well  known  and  almost  universal  was  the  desire  to  vote,  that  Stephen  S. 
Foster  and  some  others,  it  is  understood,  proposed  among  their  associates  some 
mode  of  anti-slavery  voting,  distinct  from  the  obnoxious  Liberty  party.  But  either 
the  proposal  was  overruled,  or  no  other  platform  of  anti-slavery  voting  could  be 
devised. 

t In  October,  1S42,  a Liberty  Part}-  Convention  at  Syracuse,  N.  Y.,  had  issued  a 
circular  describing  the  political  influence  of  the  American  Anti-Slavery  Society, 
which  was  not  to  be  conveniently  answered  till  the  course  of  the  Society  was 
changed. 


528 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


So  radical  a change  could  not  have  been  effected  in  a mo- 
ment. A strong  under-current  must  have  been  at  work  during  • 
the  enactment  of  the  scenes  before  described.  The  particulars 
are  not  fully  before  us,  and  we  have  little  space  for  them. 
We  are  told  that  Wendell  Phillips,  Esq.,  first  affirmed  the 
pro-slavery  character  of  the  Federal  Constitution  and  the 
inconsistency  of  voting  under  it,  at  a Convention  in  Dover, 
N.  EL,  in  October,  1841.*  Mr.  Garrison  is  said  to  have 
expressed  in  conversation,  at  that  time,  his  dissent.  It  is  be- 
lieved that  he  once  held  the  anti-slavery  character  of  the 
Constitution,  along  with  1ST.  P.  Rogers  and  S.  J.  May. 

But  at  the  next  anniversary  of  the  Society  in  New  York, 
May,  1842,  the  proposition  was  brought  forward  by  Mr.  Gar- 
rison himself.  His  annunciation  of  it  beforehand,  caused 
some  excitement,  and  the  Executive  Committee  in  New  York 
were  alarmed.  A note  of  disavowal  was  sent  by  them  to  the 
pro-slavery  editor  of  the  N.  Y.  Courier  and  Enquirer,  stating 
that  the  committee  did  not  approve  the  annunciation — that 
Mr.  Garrison  was  not  the  Society,  &c.,  or  words  of  that 
import. 

Two  years  afterwards,  May,  1844,  after  an  earnest  debate, 
a majority  of  those  present  at  the  annual  meeting  adopted  the 
new  policy,  and  many  withdrew  from  the  Society.f  The 
change  in  the  course  of  the  Society  thenceforward  was  strongly 
marked,  and  the  tone  of  the  “ National  Anti-Slavery  Stand- 
ard,” under  the  charge  of  other  editors,  also  changed. 

The  political  history  of  the  Society,  however,  does  not  end 
here.  But  we  must  digress  a little  at  this  point  to  notice 
another  schism  in  the  Society. 


* We  are  not  quite  certain  of  the  accuracy  of  some  of  these  dates,  hut  think  them 
sufficiently  early. 

t Whether  it  was  on  this  occasion,  or  before,  or  afterwards,  we  cannot  say,  but  at 
one  period  two  or  more  lecturers  of  the  Society  found  it  difficult  to  pronounce  the 
new  Bhibboleth  of  a “pro-slavery  Constitution”  having  been  so  long  accustomed  to 
promulgate  the  contrary  doctrine,  as  learned  from  N.  P.  Rogers  and  Samuel  J.  May, 
in  1836.  The  Federal  Courts  were  cited  on  the  other  side,  but  theirs  was  interested 
testimony,  and  ought  not  to  have  been  received. 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


529 


CHAPTER  XLIV. 

FURTHER  DIFFICULTIES  IN  THE  AMERICAN  ANTI-SLAVERY 
SOCIETY. 

latural  working  of  the  new  theories  concerning  Church  and  State^N.  P.  Rogers — 

His  inflexible  adherence  to  his  theory — The  Collision. 

The  particulars  that  follow  may  illustrate  the  effects  of  ex- 
:essive  exclusiveness  among  reformers.  They  may  also  throw 
ight  on  that  phase  of  attempted  reformation  that  seems  to 
ook  in  the  direction  of  displacing  all  organized  control  in 
mman  society. 

Some  of  the  leading  minds  in  the  American  Anti-Slavery 
Society,  after  the  division  of  1840,  were  understood  to  repu- 
liate  the  ideas  commonly  expressed  by  the  term  “ Church ,” 
ind  the  term  “State”  as  regularly  constituted  organizations, 
[t  seemed  to  many,  however,  that  their  cherished  organizations. 
;he  Non-Resistant  Society  and  the  Anti-Slavery  Society,  to- 
gether or  separate,  constituted,  to  them,  both  a Church  and  a 
State, — the  union  of  Church  and  State  being  of  the  most  in- 
timate kind,  amounting  to  identity ; the  discipline  and  polity 
being  of  the  most  rigorous  and  stringent  character — the  ana- 
thema tremendous — the  infliction  precipitate  and  unsparing. 
The  absence  of  any  other  Church  or  any  other  State,  would 
aaturally  tend  to  concentrate  and  vitalize,  at  this  central  point, 
whatever  of  the  governing  propensity  in  human  nature  (if 
there  be  any)  that  remained  in  them.  This  was  believed  to 
be  the  case. 

If  it  were  so,  the  fact  would  be  likely  to  develop  itself 
among  the  subjects  of  this  government.  Attracted  within  its 

34 


53C 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


jurisdiction  by  perhaps  an  excessive  dread  of  subordination 
they  would  be  likely  to  feel  it  the  more  keenly,  if  it  shoul- 
ever  happen  to  be  exercised  upon  themselves.  The  contii 
gency  was  not  long  lingering. 

Nathaniel  P.  Rogers,  Esq.,  of  New  Hampshire,  was  a ma 
of  genius — of  strong  mental  powers— an  original  and  rapi 
thinker — a racy  and  vigorous  writer- — a non-resistant — and  a 
abolitionist  of  the  Garrison  school.  For  a time  he  edited  th 
National  Anti-Slavery  Standard,  New  York,  then  again  th 
Herald  of  Freedom  at  Concord,  N.  H.  In  energy  of  purpos 
and  weight  of  talent,  he  was  second  to  no  man  among  hi. 
associates,  except  Mr.  Garrison — perhaps  not  second  to  him 
He  held  himself  subordinate  to  no  man.  There  may  hav 
been  a latent  and  unconscious  rivalry  between  the  two.  To: 
gether,  and  with  the  concurrence  perhaps  of  one  other,  ; 
lady,  the  Society  was  easily  managed.  Pitted  against  eaci 
other,  Greek  against  Greek,  there  must  be  schism. 

With  N.  P.  Rogers,  his  phase  of  abolition  and  his  theory  o 
non-government  were  no  empty  abstractions.  At  least  hi 
could  not  consent  to  be  governed.  He  had  not  abjured  th. 
Church,  to  recognize  a Bishop,  nor  the  State,  to  bow  before 
Throne,  or  to  any  power,  male  or  female,  behind  it.  Hi 
spurned,  as  instinctively,  and  as  indignantly,  the  rules  oi 
order  observed  in  Anti-slavery  Conventions  and  annual  meet 
ings,  as  he  would  those  of  Senates  or  Synods.  When  h< 
spoke,  as  he  often  did  with  great  power,  he  would  not  confine 
himself  to  reported  resolutions.  In  Executive  Committee; 
he  saw  Sanhedrims,  in  Presidents  of  Societies,  Popes,  in  re 
corded  minutes,  precedents,  in  Constitutions  of  voluntary  as 
sociations,  forms  of  government.  These,  as  a consistent  Non 
Resistant  and  lover  of  liberty,  he  abjured.  He  became  “a; 
disorganizer  ” in  the  view  of  some  who  had  been  stigmatized1 
as  disorganizers  themselves.  In  meetings  of  the  Society,  these 
points  became  matters  of  earnest  debate.  On  one  occasion 
of  the  kind,  at  Concord,  in  18-11,  we  were  incidentally  a wit- 
ness, while  Stephen  S.  Foster  maintained  against  Rogers  the 
claims  of  order,  organization,  and  official  prerogative. 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


531 


The  same  sentiment  forbade  that  Mr.  Rogers  should  re- 
cognize the  supervision  of  his  “Herald  of  Freedom”  bj  the 
Executive  Committee  of  the  New  Hampshire  Anti-Slavery 
Society,  that  claimed  it  as  their  organ.  “ I have  to  edit  the 
Herald,”  said  he,  “ and  what  I have  to  do,  nobody  else  is  to 
do  or  direct  for  me.”  A dispute  arose  concerning  the  con- 
trol and  the  proprietorship  of  the  paper.  The  merits  of  the 
case  we  do  not  know ; but  both  sides  had  their  warm  parti- 
sans. The  controversy  was  carried  to  Boston.  Mr.  (jarrison 
was  among  those  who  too]c  sides  against  Mr.  Rogers.  The 
paper  went  out  of  his  hands,  but  he  started  another  of  the 
same  name,  and  maintained  a controversy  while  he  lived,  for 
his  health  declined  and  he  died,  but  not  until  the  breach  had 
extended  be}*ond  the  boundaries  of  New  England.  Where- 
ever  there  were  supporters  of  the  American  Anti-Slavery  So- 
ciety in  central  and  western  New  York,  there  were  found 
some  who  sympathized  with  Rogers.  The  denunciations  of 
his  opponents  against  him  were  quite  as  severe  as  anything 
that  had  ever  been  fulminated  against  the  “ new  organization” 
and  the  Liberty  party.  How  the  breach  in  the  Society  was 
healed — if  it  be  healed — we  cannot  exactly  say,  but  the  pen- 
alty of  insubordination  and  “ schism,”  under  the  administra- 
tion of  the  American  Anti-Slavery  Society,  is  now  well  un- 
derstood. Its  governors  have  evinced  their  capacity  to  bear 
rule. 


582 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


CHAPTER  XLY. 

POLITICAL  COURSE  OF  THE  AMERICAN  ANTI-SLAVERY  SOCIETY 
SINCE  ITS  REVOLUTION  OF  1844. 


The  Society  not  wholly  composed  of  “Non-Resistants” — Position  of  its  politicians— 
Welcomed  as  members  of  the  Society — Commonly  connected  with  the  old  political 
parties — Consequent  standard  of  their  political  action,  as  compared  with  the  Lib- 
erty party,  or  with  the  motto  of  “ No  Union  with  Slaveholders”— On  a level  with 
the  mere  “ Wilmot  Proviso”  politicians,  or  the  platform  of  the  Free  Soil  party— 
Their  reception  of  the  nomination  of  Mr.  Van  Buren,  in  1848 — Charges  of  apos- 
tacy  against  those  Liberty  Party  men  who  came  into  the  same  measure — Relation 
of  “ Non-Resistants”  in  the  Society  to  this  political  standard  of  their  associates— 
Their  policy  read  in  the  light  of  their  theory — Facts  in  confirmation — Embarrass- 
ments of  political  abolitionists  in  consequence  of  this  opposition. 

It  may,  perhaps,  be  inferred,  from  the  features  of  the  revo- 
lution of  1844,  that  the  American  Anti-Slavery  Society  -was 
afterwards  or  is  now  composed  wholly  of  abolitionists  who 
decline  political  voting — some  on  the  principles  of  the  Non- 
Resistance  Society,  and  some  or  all  on  the  ground  of  “ no 
union  with  slaveholders,”  and  the  “ pro-slavery  Constitution 
of  the  United  States.” 

Such  a conclusion  would  be  wide  of  the  mark.  The  society 
that,  on  the  ground  of  these  features,  (so  recently  acquired,) 
claims  to  be  and  to  have  been,  since  1840,  the  only  true  Anti- 
Slavery  organization  in  America,  contains  political  voting 
members  still.  How  numerous  they  are,  or  what  proportion 
of  the  entire  body,  we  say  not,  now: — but  it  contains  them. 
It  welcomes  them.  It  chooses  to  retain  them.  By  its  agents 
it  invites  the  co-operation  of  such,  assuring  them  that  the 
“ anti-slavery  platform  is  as  broad  as  ever — broad  enough  to 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM.  533 

•eceive  those  who  vote  under  the  Federal  Constitution  as  well 
is  those  who  decline  doing  so.”* 

And.  this  is  not  all.  It  has  no  rules  and.  it  desires  none,  for 
excluding  those  Avho  vote  for  slavery,  and  even  for  slavehold- 
3rs.  We  have  the  authority  of  Mr.  Garrison  in  his  Liberator, 
for  saying  this,  although  he  declared,  in  his  Springfield  and 
Worcester  Eesolutions,  in  1840 — before  cited— that  such  a 
voter  “ has  no  title  to  the  name  of  an  abolitionist .” 

When  reminded  by  a Liberty  League  correspondent  that 
the  American  Anti-Slavery  Society,  as  well  as  other  anti-sla- 
very societies,  contained  pro-slavery  voters  and  members  of 
pro-slavery  churches,  he  denied  not  the  fact,  and  pleaded  that 
the  original  Constitution  of  the  Society,  which  remained  un- 
changed, did  not  exclude  them,  but  only  excluded  slavehold- 
ers. He  went  further,  and  vindicated  the  policy,  even  at  that 
late  day,  maintaining,  in  substance,  that  assent  to  the  anti- 
slavery principles  of  the  Society  was  the  proper  test  of  mem- 
bership, and  that  each  member  must  be  left  free  to  judge 
whether  or  no  he  honored  his  principles  in  his  practice,  so  long 
as  he  did  not  become  a slaveholder.  lie  might  vote  for  slave- 
holders, and  hold  religious  fellowship  with  them,  and  remain 
in  the  Society. 

In  the  light  of  this  avowal,  the  exclusive  claims  of  the 
American  Anti-Slavery  Society  to  purity  of  membership  may 
be  tested.  The  relation  of  the  Society  to  politics,  since  1844, 
may  also  be  understood. 

The  Society  is  not  a Society  of  self-disfranchised  non- voters, 
after  all,  as  the  “ Covenanters  ” are.  While  some,!of  its  mem- 
bers hold  that  position,  others  of  them  do  not.  In  the  matter 
of  membership, ' it  is  not  a test.  To  the  merits  of  that  posi- 
tion, whatever  they  may  be,  the  Society,  as  such,  has  no  valid 
claim. 

Still  further,  the  test  of  membership  in  that  Society — as  in 


* This  language  was  lately  held,  in  our  hearing,  at  Rochester,  by  Mr.  S.  S.  Foster, 
agent  of  the  Society,  who  was  laboring  to  persuade  an  Anti-Slavery  Society  then 
organizing,  and  composed  chiefly  of  political  voters,  to  become  auxiliary  to  the 
American  A.  S.  Society. 


534 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


others — opens  the  door  to  those  voters  who,  in  Mr.  Garrison’s 
view,  “ have  no  title  to  the  name  of  abolitionists:'  How  then', 
does  he  ascertain  the  claims  of  the  Society  to  the  name  of 
abolitionist,  in  contrast  with  the  claims  of  other  societies  ? He 
need  not  institute  a comparison  with  the  Liberty  party,  which 
contains  no  such  voters. 

The  Society  is  composed,  to  an  unknown  extent,  of  politi- 
cal voters* — perhaps  of  pro-slavery  voters.  In  the  Society 
they  have  an  equal  right  with  Mr.  Garrison  and  faithful  abo- 
litionists. How  then  does  the  motto  of  “ no  union  with  slave- 
holders ” expurgate  the  Society  ? Is  there  no  union  with 
slaveholders  in  a voluntary  and  fraternal  union  with  those  who 
vote  for  them  ? 

Being  composed,  to  a certain  extent,  of  political  voters,  the 
Society  must  have  a standard  of  political  ethics  and  action. 

It  has  one.  How  does  it  compare  with  the  standard  of 
other  anti-slavery  societies,  and  with  the  standard  of  the  Lib- 
erty party  ? 

No  anti-slavery  society  that  we  know  of  has  a lower  stand- 
ard, in  this  respect,  than  the  American  Society.  The  Liberty 
party  has  a much  higher  one. 

Political  voters  connected  with  the  American  Anti-Slavery 
Society,  since  1844,  it  may  be  presumed,  with  possible  excep- 
tions, have  not  voted  with  the  Liberty  party.  The  dread  of 
being  branded  “ apostates,”  if  nothing  else,  will  have  restrained 
them  from  that. 

For  whom,  then,  have  they  been  casting  their  votes?  And 
what  tone  of  political  ethics  has  been  indicated  by  their 
voting  ? 

The  candidates  of  the  Liberty  party,  before  its  incipient  ab- 
sorption into  the  embroyo  Free  Soil  party,  in  the  autumn  of 


* It  is  not  known  that  the  number  of  non-voting  Non-Resistants  has  increased 
since  they  were  estimated  at  “ one  or  two  hundred  in  all  New  England.”  Some 
prominent  advocates  of  the  doctrine  have  resumed  voting.  We  know  of  few  who 
abstain  from  the  polls  on  account  of  the  “pro-slavery  Constitution,”  but  there  are 
some.  If  political  voters  do  not  compose  a majority  of  the  supporters  of  the  Society, 
it  must  be  feebler  than  we  have  supposed  it  to  be. 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


535 


.847,  were  always  pledged  to  the  abolition  of  slavery  in  the 
district  of  Columbia,  and  Territories,  the  prohibition  of  the 
nter-State  Slave  trade,  and  the  non-extension  of  Slavery. 
This  was  the  old  demand  of  abolitionists.  The  Liberty 
League,  and  the  remnant  of  the  Liberty  party  since  the 
ibsorption,  have  gone  farther,  demanding  the  abolition  of 
Slavery  in  the  States — the  highest  standard  of  political 
xbolitionism. 

Have  the  candidates  receiving  the  votes  of  members  of  the 
American  Anti-Slavery  Society,  since  1844,  been  pledged  to 
the  measures  of  even  the  old  Liberty  party  ? 

To  ask  such  a question  is  to  answer  it.  Though  the  tone 
of  anti-slavery  feeling  in  portions  of  the  Whig  and  Demo- 
cratic parties  has  been  rising,  their  candidates  have  not  been 
pledged  to  these  measures. 

The  measures  of  the  Free  Soil  party,  and  the  pledges  of  its 
candidates,  have  already  been  described.  The  Annual  Report 
of  the  Old  Massachusetts  Anti-Slavery  Society,  for  1852, 
affords  a similar  description.  It  designates  the  standard  of 
that  party  as  falling  short  of  the  demands  of  consistent  aboli- 
tionism. It  is  so,  precisely  at  those  points  wherein  it  falls 
short  of  the  position  of  the  Liberty  party,  as  just  now  re- 
corded. 

But  the  very  highest  standard  indicated  by  the  votes  of 
members  of  the  American  Anti-Slavery  Society,  even  since 
1844,  is  that  of  the  Free  Soil  party,  or  that  of  certain  mem- 
bers of  the  Whig  and  Democratic  parties.  To  no  higher  stand- 
ard of  voting  could  Mr.  Garrison  himself  point  them , without 
advising  them  to  vote  for  the  candidates  of  the  Liberty  party. 

But  this  he  has  not  done.  It  follows  that  the  highest  stand- 
ard of  political  action  countenanced  by  the  American  Anti- 
Slavery  Society,  even  since  its  revolution  in  1844,  has  been 
lower  than  that  of  the  old  Liberty  party. 

Silice  1844,  as  truly  as  in  1842,  the  influence  of  that  So- 
ciety upon  its  political  voters  has  been  to  lead  them  not  to 
“insist”  on  the  “genuine”  abolition  of  those  for  whom  they 


536 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


cast  their  votes,  but  to  prefer  voting  for  those  who  “have 
a strong  motive  for  obliging  abolitionists.” 

The  lower  standard  of  political  abolitipnism  has  uniformly 
been  preferred  by  the  Society  and  its  leading  members  to  the 
higher.  And  the  voting  members  of  the  Society,  when  voting 
with  any  reference  at  all  to  the  slave  question,  have  voted  ac- 
cordingly. Let  facts  testify. 

When  certain  “progressive”  wliigs  and  democrats  espoused 
“the  Wilmot  proviso,”  they  constituted  the  only  political  ele- 
ment then  hi  the  country  adverse  in  any  degree  to  the  as- 
cendency of  slavery,  except  the  Liberty  party.  For  this 
these  statesmen  deserved  due  honor,  but  they  did  not  come 
up  to  the  higher  political  ethics  and  demands  of  the  Liberty 
party.  The  leading  influences  and  the  voting  members  of 
the  American  Anti-Slavery  Society  supported  the  former 
(though  standing  in  their  pro-slavery  parties,  and  sometimes 
voting  for  slaveholders)  in  preference  to  the  latter. 

Did  this  course  honor  their  new  flag  of  “ No  union  with 
slaveholders  ?” 

Measure  the  distance  between  the  platform  of  mere  “Wil- 
mot proviso”  and  that  of  the  Liberty  party,  pledged  to  the 
abolition  of  slavery,  and  you  have  the  distance  at  that  period, 
between  the  political  ethics  of  a voting  Garrison  abolitionist, 
and  a voter  in  the  Liberty  party.  The  former  voted  only 
against  the  extension  of  slavery — the  latter  against  its  exten- 
sion and  in  favor  of  its  abolition. 

The  lower  standard  was  again  preferred  to  the  higher,  when 
indications  appeared  of  the  organizing  of  a “ Free  Soil  party.” 
That  measure  encountered  none  of  the  virulent  opposition 
that  had  been  manifested  against  the  formation  of  the  Liberty 
party. 

And  yet  again,  when  the  question  presented  itself,  of  the 
absorption  of  the  Liberty  party  in  the  Free  Soil  party,  the 
same  preference  was  again  witnessed — though  amid  some  con- 
fusion of  tongues,  as  different  aspects  of  the  transaction  pre- 
sented themselves.  The  leaders  of  the  American  Anti-Slavery 
Society  could  not  fail  to  see  that  in  such  a movement  the 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


537 


members  of  the  Liberty  party  would  lower  down  their  stand- 
ard of  political  abolitionism,  and  the  first  impulse  was  to  re- 
proach them  for  their  defection.  “Leading  Liberty  party 
men”  said  they  “ are  preparing  to  desert  the  slave.  Have  we 
not  always  said  they  would  prove  untrue?”  A second  glance 
revealed  to  them  the  fact  that  in  such  a movement  the  mem- 
bers of  the  Liberty  party  would  be  coming  into  close  political 
affinity  with  the  “ Wilmot  proviso”  voters  in  the  old  Ameri- 
can Anti-Slavery  Society.  Above  all,  the  troublesome  Liberty 
party  would  be  crippled,  perhaps  disbanded.  “ Liberty  party 
men”  said  they  “are  coming  to  their  senses.”  “We  have 
strong  hopes  of  this  new  movement.” 

We  may  fail  to  recall  the  precise  words,  but  the  import  of 
both  these  conflicting  comments  came  close  on  the  heels  of 
each  other  in  the  Liberator  and  Standard. 

At  the  Free  Soil  nomination  of  Martin  Yan  Buren  at  Buf- 
falo in  1848,  Rev.  Samuel  J.  May,  a “non-resistant”  aboli- 
tionist, a leader  from  the  beginning  of  the  “ old  organization,” 
gave  his  approbation  of  the  movement  in  a speech,  and  in- 
voked upon  it  the  blessing  of  Heaven  in  prayer.  At  no 
Liberty  party  nomination  that  we  know  of,  was  his  approving 
voice  ever  heard  or  his  prayers  offered.  Thus  deep  into  “the 
dirty  waters  of  politics,”  he  could  not  have  descended.  Yet 
Samuel  J.  May  is  one  of  the  most  liberal  minded  men,  one 
of  the  most  earnest  abolitionists,  in  the  Society  to  which  he 
belongs. 

And  after  all  this,  at  a convention  of  all  descriptions  of 
abolitionists  at  Syracuse,  (the  residence  of  Samuel  J.  May) 
an  abolitionist  of  the  Garrison  school  vehemently  insisted 
upon  the  rottenness  of  the  Liberty  party,  and  adduced,  in  a 
way  of  evidence  and  illustration,  the  fact  that  so  large  a por- 
tion of  it  had  lowered  down  the  high  and  holy  standard  of 
abolitionism,  by  becoming  absorbed  in  the  Free  Soil  party! 
He  seemed  to  forget  that  in  this  transition — however  it  was 
to  be  described — they  had  come  upon  the  highest  platform 
of  political  action  ever  sanctioned  by  the  “ old  organization  ” 
— that  the  high  and  holy  standard  of  abolitionism  apostatized 


588 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


from,  was  that  of  the  old  “one  idea”  Liberty  party — though 
even  this  was  not  deemed  as  utopian  and  ultra  as  that  of  the 
Liberty  league. 

The  question  forces  itself  upon  our  attention : How  can 
such  radical  abolitionists  as  Mr.  Garrison  and  his  associates 
undoubtedly  are,  prefer  that  those  who  do  make  use  of  the 
ballot  box,  should  espouse  a lower  instead  of  a higher  stand- 
ard of  political  abolitionism  ? 

It  seems  hardly  computable  with  their  known  sagacity  and 
characteristic  dread  of  compromise  to  suppose  that  they  fall 
in  with  the  shallow  policy  of  attempting  to  achieve  great  ends 
by  temporizing  expedients. 

Their  views  of  the  Federal  Constitution  and  of  the  limited 
powers  of  the  Federal  Government,  cannot  account  for  it. 
Though  they  decline  voting  themselves,  they  willingly  and 
without  conscientious  scruple,  make  political  suggestions  for 
the  guidance  of  those  who  do  vote.  They  have  not  ques- 
tioned the  constitutional  powers  of  Congress  over  the  slavery 
of  the  Federal  District,  the  Territories,  and  the  inter-state 
slave  trade — as  well  as  the  non-extension  of  slavery.  Yet  we 
have  seen  them  steadily  prefer  that  voting  abolitionists  should 
rally  on  the  latter  issue  alone,  rather  than  that  they  should 
include  likewise  the  former  and  the  more  important.  Politi- 
cally, they  are  non-extensionists,  rather  than  abolitionists. 

If  it  be  said  that  they  had  hopes  of  accomplishing  the  one 
and  not  the  other,  we  repeat  that  such  compromises  and  ex- 
pedients do  not  come  within  the  scope  of  their  accustomed 
activities  and  methods. 

It  must  be  remembered  that  they  are  non-resistants  as  well 
as  abolitionists.  They  believe  that  slavery  is  wicked ; but 
they  believe,  too,  that  the  compulsory  abolition  of  slavery 
by  the  strong  arm  of  civil  government,  would  also  be  wicked. 
How  then  can  they  consistently  or  conscientiously  advise  effi- 
cient political  action  for  the  compulsory  abolition  of  slavery? 
An  incident  or  two  will  show  the  pertinency  of  the  question. 

When  the  platform  of  the  proposed  Liberty  league  was 
published,  it  encountered,  of  course,  the  searching  scrutiny 


jt 

5 

:R 


is 

: 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


539 


>f  Mr.  Garrison.  He  evidently  saw  that  it  was  free  from 
ome  of  the  objections  that  had  been  made  against  the  Liberty 
>arty,  and  that  it  was  adapted  to  find  favor  with  the  most 
adical  class  of  such  reformers  as  make  use  of  the  ballot  box. 
't  was  equally  plain  that  he  did  not  wish  them  to  fall  in  with 
t.  He  found  no  fault  with  its  proposed  objects — abolition, 
fee  trade,  &c.  It  became  necessary  to  state  his  objections.  In 
loing  this,  the  key-note  of  all  his  political  advice  was  clearly 
wealed.  He  objected  distinctly  to  the  compulsory  action  of 
:ivil  government,  even  for  the  abolition  of  slavery.  And, 
,vith  some  seeming  warmth  he  affirmed,  that  if  the  penman 
ffi  the  document,  his  old  friend,  were  placed  in  the  position 
>f  Chief  Magistrate,  he  could  not  carry  out  the  measure  with- 
out a practical  rejection  of  Christianity  in  using  physical 
force. 

The  same  sentiment  was  again  uttered  distinctly,  by  Mr. 
Garrison  and  Henry  C.  Wright,  at  the  anniversary  of  the 
American  Anti-Slavery  Society,  May,  1851,  at  Syracuse.  A 
discussion  with  Liberty  party  men  concerning  political  action 
against  slavery,  drove  them,  at  last,  to  that  position. 

If  this  had  been  understood  on  both  sides,  and  kept  in  mind, 
from  the  beginning,  much  angry  and  misdirected  altercation 
might  have  been  spared.  If  it  can  be  remembered  hereafter, 
it  may  prevent  similar  wranglings,  in  time  to  come. 

Non-Resistants  do  not  seek  to  suppress  crime— not  even  the 
crime  of  slaveholding,  by  the  strong  arm  of  civil  government. 
Their  appeal  is  rather  to  the  slaveholder.  They  would  have 
the  slave-laws  repealed : but  they  understand  that,  under  a 
compulsory  civil  government,  such  a repeal  would  be  followed, 
if  needful,  by  the  forcible  suppression  of  slaveholding.  For 
this  they  are  not  prepared,  and  cannot  be,  while  they  remain 
Non-Resistants.  They  are  shut  up  (if  consistent)  to  mere  mo- 
ral suasion.  This  is  their  field.  Let  them  occupy  it  without 
being  reproached.  They  have  a right  to  their  own  principles 
and  to  corresponding  measures. 

Abolitionists  believing  (as  most  abolitionists  do)  in  a com- 
pulsory civil  government,  have  an  equal  right  to  their  own 


540 


GKEAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


principles  and  measures.  If  they  understand  themselves,  they 
will  not  follow  the  political  advice  of  those  who  do  not  seek 
the  compulsory  suppression  of  slaveholding.  For  refusing 
such  advisers,  they  do  not  deserve  to  be  denounced  as  untrue 
to  the  slave ; nor  denied  the  honorable  name  of  abolitionists 
because  they  do  really  seek  the  abolition  of  slavery  ,*  and  not 
merely  the  emancipation  of  the  slaves. 

Among  the  obstacles  which  political  abolitionists  in  Ameri- 
ca have  been  called  to  encounter,  one  of  the  most  formidable 
and  perplexing  (because,  by  many,  unperceived)  has  been  the 
influence  of  political  advisers,  earnest  emancipationists,  who 
have  believed  it  wicked  to  suppress  slaveholding  by  a government 
wielding  physical  force.  Had  they  always  and  steadily  exhibited 
the  ethical  foundations  of  their  political  advice,  that  advice 
would  have  been  understood,  and  there  would  have  been  no 
occasion  for  complaint. 

If  the  boast,  already  begun  by  lecturing  agents  of  the 
American  Anti-Slavery  Society,  Non-Resistants,  that  they 
have  broken  down  the  Liberty  party,  should  prove  well- 
founded  or  prophetic,  the  reader  will  see  how,  on  what  prin- 
ciples, by  what  methods,  and  with  what  auxiliaries,  the  work 
was,  or  will  have  been,  accomplished.  And  posterity  will 
j udge  how  much  the  exploit  facilitated  the  abolition  of  Ameri- 
can slavery,  or  vindicated  the  claims  of  the  victors  to  the  title 
of  “ the  only  true  abolitionists  in  the  country.” 

Those  who  would  understand  the  history  of  political  aboli- 
tionism in  America — its  origin — its  nature — its  objects — its 
obstacles — its  future  prospects — will  find  no  occasion  to  com- 
plain that  we  have  detained  them  too  long  on  this  topic.  Its 
stmty  will  furnish  them  with  a key  to  many  intricacies  other- 
wise inexplicable. 

* The  phrase  “ abolition  of  slavery ,”  in  strictness  of  speech,  as  well  as  in  popular 
usage,  expresses  the  act  of  repealing  the  slave  code,  and  suppressing  the  practice  of 
slaveholding.  This  was  the  “ abolition  of  slavery”  in  the  British  West  Indies.  If 
all  the  slaveholders  in  America  should  emancipate  all  their  slaves  to-day,  that  would 
not  be  the  abolition  of  American  slavery.  Slaves  might  he  held  again  to-morrow. 
Non-Resistants  opiposed  to  slavery,  are  properly  emancipationists.  We  will  call 
them  abolitionists , if  they  prefer  it,  but  in  doing  so  we  must  use  the  word  in  a new 
and  accommodated  signification. 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


' 541 


CHAPTER  XL VI. 

COURSE  OF  MR.  GARRISON,  AND  THE  AMERICAN  ANTI-SLAVERY 
SOCIETY  AND  ITS  MEMBERS,  SINCE  THE  DIVISION  IN  1840,  IN 
RESPECT  TO  ANTI-SLAVERY  CHURCH  ACTION. 

Sympathizers  with  the  “ Clerical  Appeal” — an  inconsiderable  and  local  minority  of 
the  Liberty  party — Unhappy  ecclesiastical  connections  (nevertheless),  of  a majority 
of  its  members — Same  inconsistency  found  in  the  American  A.  S.  Society — Anti- 
Slavery  Church  agitations,  extensive,  but  overlooked  by  the  Journalists  of  the  So- 
ciety— Anti-Slavery  Church  and  Missionary  re-organization  little  noticed  by  them — 
Position  of  the  Amer.  Society — Of  its  members  who  desire  no  Church  relations — 
Causes  which  repulsed  many  Church  members  from  that  Society — Ecclesiastical 
position  of  those  members  of  the  Society  who  do  sustain  Church  relations.  Con- 
nection with  pro-slavery  bodies — Few  Anti-Slavery  re-organizations,  or  agitations 
to  that  end— Other  side  of  the  picture — AntLSlavery  Universalists — Testimony  of 
Mr.  Garrison. 

TVe  have  seen  that  Mr.  Garrison  and  his  associates  in  the 
American  Anti-Slavery  Society,  at  an  early  day,  discounte- 
nanced withdrawal  from  pro-slavery  parties  and  churches , with 
a view  to  the  organizing  of  new  ones ; — that  they  neverthe- 
less, at  the  same  time,  favored  and  raised  the  cry,  to  “ come 
out,”  of  pro-slavery  churches — that  then,  and  since,  to  the  pre- 
sent time,  they  have  perseveringly  charged  upon  the  Ameri- 
can and  Foreign  Anti-Slavery  Society  (with  which  they  con- 
nect the  Liberty  party),  “that  it  sprung  into  existence  for  the 
protection  of  pro-slavery  churches” — claiming  for  themselves 
and  their  Society  the  exclusive  credit  of  fidelity  to  the  slave, 
in  this  particular. 

Here  are  claims  to  be  scrutinized,  charges  to  be  examined, 
apparent  discrepancies  to  be  reconciled,  or  accounted  for. 

The  facts  of  the  case  must  be  impartially  presented.  In  no 
other  way  can  these  problems  be  solved,  or  posterity  put  in 


542 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


possession  of  any  trustworthy  history  of  the  anti-slavery  move, 
ment  in  America.  This  we  shall  endeavor  to  do,  so  far  as  ou 
limits  will  permit. 

We  have  already  said  that  those  abolitionists  in  New  Eng 
land,  who  sympathized  with  the  “Clerical  Appeal,” in  its  ten 
derness  towards  pro-slavery  ministers,  took  ground  against  Mr 
Garrison  and  were  drawn  into  the  “New  Organization” — per 
haps  some  of  them  into  the  Liberty  party.  Hence  the  claims 
and  representations  to  which  we  have  referred.  But  these 
were  only  a small  part  of  the  New  Organization — a very  small 
part,  certainly,  of  the  Liberty  party. 

We  have  also  said  that  a large  portion  of  the  Liberty  party, 
including,  of  course,  a considerable  number  of  those  who  pre- 
ferred (on  the  whole)  the  “New”  to  the  “Old”  Society  after 
the  division,  continued  in  their  old  Churches,  (many  if  not 
most  of  them  pro-slavery,)  and  that  this,  in  our  view,  was 
among  the  causes  why  the  majority  of  the  Liberty  party  could 
not  perseveringly  maintain  the  high  standard  of  political  ethics 
which  gave  rise  to  that  party. 

With  this  full  and  free  statement  concerning  the  party  with 
which  we  have  acted,  we  must  be  permitted  to  connect  another 
concerning  those  who  stood  aloof  from  that  party,  who  oppo- 
sed it,  and  who  belonged  to  “ the  Old  Organization”  with  Mr. 
Garrison. 

According  to  the  best  information  we  have  ever  been  able 
to  collect,  the  portion  of  the  American  Anti-Slavery  Society 
who  wish  to  sustain  any  Church  relations  at  all , are  quite  as  com- 
monly and  as  extensively  (in  proportion  to  numbers)  connected 
with  pro-slavery  churches  as  abolitionists  connected  with  the 
“ New”  (the  American  and  Foreign)  Anti-Slavery  Society,  or 
the  Liberty  party.* 

* It  may  be  said  (as  it  has  been,)  that  those  who  withdraw  from  pro-slavery  politi- 
cal parties,  and  yet  cling  to  pro-slavery  Churches,  are  less  consistent  than  those  that 
cling  to  both.  And  it  may  be  retorted,  that  those  who  withdraw  from  pro-slavery 
political  parties,  exhibit,  at  least,  one  more  phase  of  progress  than  those  who  cling  to 
both.  It  may  further  be  said,  that  in  sects  maintaining  some  degree  of  local  Church 
independency,  yet  remotely  related  to  large  ecclesiastical  bodies,  the  character  of  the 
body,  the  nature  of  the  relation,  and  the  prospect  of  a salutary  change,  are  not  as 
readily  ascertained  as  in  the  two  great  political  parties. 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


543 


Our  own  strong  impression  is,  that,  in  respect  to  the  Liberty 
party,  (especially  as  it  now  stands)  the  difference  is  greatly  on 
the  other  side.  A large  portion 'of  its  members  are  members 
of  anti-slavery  churches. 

The  agitation  in  the  churches  has  been  a very  important 
part  of  the  anti-slavery  movement,  especially  where  Christian 
abolitionists,  to  so  wide  an  extent,  and  for  so  long  a time, 
have  associated  themselves  for  the  purpose  of  holding  Chris- 
tian Anti-Slavery  Conventions,  sustaining  lecturers,  circu- 
lating books,  papers,  and  tracts,  with  a direct  view  to  bring 
the  churches  into  an  anti-slavery  position,  or,  in  case  of  fail- 
ure (as  has  been  the  general  fact),  to  secede  and  gather  new 
churches.  The  extent  to  which  this  has  been  done  (as  briefly 
recorded  already),  has  been  sufficient,  one  would  think,  to 
deserve  some  approving  record  in  the  official  organs  and  other 
leading  journals  of  “ the  only ” trustworthy  Anti-Slavery  So- 
ciety in  America,  the  Society  that  claims  to  be  distinguished 
from  all  other  organizations  for  fidelity  on  the  church  ques- 
tion ; and  that  charges  its  rival  with  having  1 ‘ sprung  into 
existence  for  the  protection  of  pro-slavery  churches.”  Com- 
mon justice  would  seem  to  have  required  at  the  hands  of  such 
a Society  and  such  journalists,  that  so  dark  a picture  should 
be  relieved  by  a presentation  of  any  important  facts  of  a more 
encouraging  character.  The  readers,  in  Europe,  of  their  Lib- 
erator, their  National  Anti-Slavery  Standard,  and  their  Annual 
Reports,  might  have  been  interested  to  know  that  among  the 
proscribed  and  anathematized  class  of  abolitionists,  some  such 
manifestations  had  been  witnessed.  But  so  far  as  we  have 
been  able  to  learn,  this  class  of  important  facts  have  been 
almost  wholly  ignored  or  overlooked  by  them. 

When  General  Associations,  General  Assemblies,  General 
Conferences,  smaller  ecclesiastical  bodies,  Missionary  Boards, 
&c.,  &c.,  embracing  a majority  opposed  to  abolitionists,  have 
met,  and  debated,  and  taken  action,  or  refused  to  take  any, 
the  facts  have  not  escaped  due  notice  from  them.  But  when 
abolitionists  connected  with  those  bodies  have  banded  them- 
selves together  for  efficient  anti-slavery  agitation  and  action 


544 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


among  the  constituencies  of  such  bodies ; when  new  mission- 
ary boards,  new  churches,  and  extended  ecclesiastical  bodies, 
have  been  organized  on  anti-slavery  principles,  very  little,  if 
any,  recognition  or  notice  has  been  taken  of  such  facts  by  the 
leaders  and  organs  of  the  American  Anti-Slavery  Society  * 
The  historian  must  look  elsewhere  than  to  the  columns  of 
their  journals  and  the  pages  of  their  annual  reports,  for  infor- 
mation concerning  this  movement.  He  must  seek  it  in  the 
papers  of  the  Liberty  -party,  and  in  the  religious  papers  con- 
ducted by  those  engaged  in  these  enterprises.  If  it  be  said 
that  the  records  of  these  extensive  movements  were  too  . 
voluminous  for  the  Liberator  and  Standard,  and  similar  jour- 
nals, it  may  be  asked,  whether  there  could  not  have  been 
found  room  for  occasional  notices  and  recommendations  of 
them,  even  if  some  of  the  discussions  in  the  Liberator  con- 
cerning the  Sabbath  and  the  Bible,  and  proceedings  of  con- 
ventions on  those  topics,  had  been  somewhat  curtailed  or 
abridged.  If  it  be  so  that  even  a condensed  record  of  these 
movements  (which  were  before  them  in  their  “exchange 
papers”)  would  inconveniently  encumber  their  columns,  it 
would  seem  to  follow  that  the  sweeping  charge  against  other 
anti-slavery  bodies,  of  “having  sprung  into  existence  for  the 
protection  of  pro-slavery  churches,”  requires  essential  modifi- 
cation*. For,  with  very  inconsiderable  exceptions,  if  any, 
these  movements  have  been  carried  on  by  active  members  of 
the  organizations  thus  censured.  And  no  anti-slavery  move- 
ments have  been  more  bitterly  assailed  by  the  leaders  and 
organs  of  the  pro-slavery  churches  and  missionary  bodies. 

We  now  inquire,  more  particularly  and  directly,  concerning 
the  relation  of  the  American  Anti-Slavery  Society  to  pro- 
slavery churches,  and  the  efforts  of  its  members  in  respect  to 
anti-slavery  church  reformation. 

It  may  be  true  that  a smaller  proportion  of  the  members  of 


* The  only  exception  we  remember  to  have  met  with,  was  a favorable  notice,  in 
the  National  Anti-Slavery  Standard,  of  the  organization  of  a single  local  anti-slavery 
church,  as  though  it  were  a new  thing,  some  years  after  hundreds,  probably,  of 
similar  churches  had  been  organized,  and  after  a change  of  editors  of  that  paper. 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


545 


he  American  Anti-Slavery  Society  are  connected  with  pro 
slavery  churches,  than  are  to  -be  found  in  the  “ new”  organi- 
sation (or  were  in  the  Liberty  party  prior  to  1848),  because 
't  may  be  true  that  a much  smaller  proportion  of  them  (espe- 
cially leading  members,  editors,  and  lecturers)  are,  or  desire 
o be,  members  of  any  organized  churches  whatever. 

If  this  be  so,  it  may  be  remarked,  that  while  abolitionists 
.vho  rejected  all  church  organization  had  an  equal  right  to 
heir  own  views  and  usages,  it  must  be  remembered  that  their 
separation  from  pro-slavery  churches  may  have  had  other 
grounds  than  their  abolition  principles ; and  that  it  was  com- 
paratively easy  for  those  who,  on  such  other  grounds,  had 
‘ come  out”  or  remained  out  of  the  churches,  to  raise  an  out- 
cry against  those  who  remained  in  them.  This  zeal  may  pos- 
sibly have  sprung,  in  some  measure,  from  another  source 
oesides  their  superior  fidelity  to  the  slave..  It  is  not  to  be 
issumed  that  they  were  free  from  the  common  infirmities  of 
luman  beings.  Ivor  is  it  quite  clear  that  they  gave  evidence 
)f  greater  self-denial  in  the  anti-slavery  cause  than  did  the 
nany  thousands  (unrecognized  as  true  abolitionists  by  them) 
vho,  with  strong  attachments  to  long  cherished  church  insti- 
:utions  and  loved  associates,  severed  these  strong  ties,  and 
vitli  great  sacrifices  of  social  feeling  and  of  pecuniary  expen- 
liture,  established  new  church  relations,  in  accordance  with 
mti-slavery  principles,  amid  opposition  and  scorn. 

If  large  numbers  of  anti-slavery  church  members,  particu- 
arly  those  called  “ orthodox”  or  “ evangelical,”  separated 
rom  Mr.  Garrison,  and  consequently  from  the  American 
Anti-Slavery  Society,  on  the  division,  some  facts  already 
stated  may  suggest  reasons  for  their  course,  aside  from  the 
lerelictions  that  have  been  imputed  to  them.  Men  seldom,  if 
;ver,  retain  organized  religious  or  moral  co-operation  and 
iffinity  with  leaders  who  deride  their  religious  principles  and 
he  institutions  to  which  they  have  attached  themselves.  This 
nay  be  accounted  consistency  and.  sagacity,  or  it  may  be 
iccounted  bigotry  and  weakness.  The  general  fact,  neverthe- 
ess,  remains.  The  cause  existed,  and  was  sufficient  to  pro- 

35 


546 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


duce  the  effect ; and  there  is  no  occasion,  in  the  absence  of. 
evidence  (with  the  exception  of  those  favoring  the  “Clerical' 
Appeal”)  to  impute  additional  ones.  It  would  be  the  extreme 
of  bigotry,  in  such  a case,  to  assume  that  their  withdrawal  from 
a particular  anti-slavery  society,  and  joining  another  one  of 
the  same  anti-slavery  creed,  where  their  religious  predilections 
would  not  be  outraged,  gave  evidence  of  unfaithfulness  to  the 
anti-slavery  cause. 

Similar  causes,  after  the  division,  continued  to  produce  and 
perpetuate  similar  effects.  Conventions  were  held  to  discuss 
the  Sabbath  question.  In  March,  1842,  if  we  correctly 
remember,  a Convention  was  held  to  discuss  the  divine  inspi- 
ration and  authority  of  the  Bible.  These  Conventions  were 
invited  and  attended  by  leading  abolitionists  in  the  American 
Anti-Slavery  Society,  and  ground  was  taken  by  them,  and 
language  used,  in  those  Conventions  and  in  the  columns  of 
the  Liberator,  adverse  to  the  principles  of  “ orthodox”  or. 
“ evangelical”  Christians,  and  highly  offensive  to  them.  We 
say  nothing  here  of  the  merits  of  these  discussions.  We  say 
nothing  against  their  right  of  free  expression.  We  only 
record  the  facts  along  with  the  effect  which  they  naturally 
and  evidently  produced — the  alienation  of  many  abolitionists' 
from  that  Society,  on  other  grounds  than  differences  of  anti- 
slavery principles,  or  even  of  anti-slavery  measures — unless' 
to  “ unseat  popular  theology  from  its  throne”  (in  the  language 
before  quoted  from  the  National  Anti-Slavery  Standard),  and! 
the  overthrow  of  commonly  accredited  religious  institutions, 
are  to  be  recognized  as  anti-slavery  measures. 

It  was  said  that  the  Liberator,  at  that  time,  was  not  the 
official  organ  of  the  Society.  But  its  editor  was  the  recognized 
leader  of  the  Society.  It  was  said  that  these  conventions  were 
not  Anti-Slavery  Conventions,  and  that  the  sentiments  ob- 
jected against  were  not  promulgated  “ on  the  Anti-Slavery 
platform,”  nor  by  “ the  Society  as  such.”*  But  some  feared 


* A certain  Colonization  Society,  “ as  such,”  may  not  have  forcibly  expelled  the 
colored  people,  nor  enacted  the  Fugitive  Slave  bill,  nor  advocated  either  of  those 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


547 


hat  the  society  would  not  be  guided  right,  if  its  leaders 
■efused  to  be  guided  by  the  Bible. 

-Sometime  after  this,  similar  conventions  were  held  in  dif- 
ferent parts  of  the  country,  and  as  far  west  as  Ohio,  in'  this 
nanner.  Anti-slavery  lecturers,  agents  of  the  Society,  sus- 
ained  by  its  funds,  and  holding  the  new  views  of  civil  gov- 
ernment, of  penal  law,  of  church  institutions,  of  the  ministry, 
>f  the  Sabbath,  and  of  the  Bible,  had  their  appointments  for 
nti-slavery  conventions  published  in  their  papers,  before- 
land,  under  the  head  of  “ One  hundred  Anti-Slavery  Con- 
tentions.” How  many  of  them  were  held  we  do  not  know, 
>ut  in  several  places  where  these  appointments  were  fulfilled, 
he  same  speakers,  by  previous  arrangement,  would  remain 
n the  same  place  long  enough  to  hold  another  convention  on 
me  or  more  of  the  other  topics.  Thus  the  funds  of  the  Anti- 
slavery  Society  appealed  to  have  sustained  the  lecturers  on 
he  other  topics,  and  the  notices  of  anti-slavery  conventions 
hew  together  hearers  for  them.  If  this  was  not  the  promul- 
gation of  their  other  sentiments,  “on  the  anti-slavery  plat- 
orm  ” and  by  “the  society  as  such,”  it  so  nearly  resembled 
t that  many  simple-minded  people  were  so  dull  as  to  fail  of 
>erceiving  the  wide  distinction. 

It  will  be  seen  from  all  this,  that  causes  remote  from  pro- 
lavery  and  anti-slavery,  withdrew  many  anti-slavery  Church 
nembers  from  the  Anti-Slavery  Society  conducted  by  Mr. 
larrison  and  his  associates — whether  wisely  or  unwisely,  on 
ither  side,  is  not  the  point  to  be  here  examined.  We  are 
ecording  the  facts. 

And  the  facts  being  so,  it  might  be  inferred  that  this  with- 
Irawal  of  so  many  Church  members  from  the  American  Anti- 
slavery  Society,  (or  this  withholding  them  from  joining  it,) 
aight  possibly  leave  it  in  a position  in  which  only  a small 


leasures  “ on  the  Colonization  platform.”  But  when  those  who  hated  those  man- 
ures found  the  leaders  of  the  Colonization  Society  supporting  them,  they  were  led 
o identify  them  with  the  Colonization  Society.  We  intimate  no  farther  parallel  in 
he  cases  than  the  natural  workings  of  cause  and  effect  on  a community,  when  lead- 
rs  in  a great  society  give  offense  by  their  position. 


548 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


proportion  of  its  members,  in  comparison  with  those  in  the. 
other  society,  would  have  any  Church  relations  to  be  attended 
to,  especially  when  it  is  remembered  that  some  of  the  leading 
mem'bers  neither  held  nor  desired  any  such  relations. 

It  is  evident  that  in  any  equitable  comparison  of  the  two 
societies,  in  respect  to  their  course  on  the  Church  question, 
the  comparison  must  be  instituted  between  the  ministers  and 
Church  members  and  their  supporters,  in  the  two  societies. 

For  some  time  after  the  division  it  was  however  claimed 
by  the  friends  of  Mr.  Garrison  that  a considerable  number  of 
respectable  orthodox  ministers  and  Church  members  remained 
in  their  Society,  whence  they  inferred  that  all  genuine  aboli- 
tionists among  the  “orthodox”  would  do  so.  We  remember 
some  prominent  names  of  ministers  and  others  who  did  re- 
main. And  they  also  remained,  so  far  as  we  know,  in  their 
old  ecclesiastical  connections,  without  being  spurned  by  Mr. 
Garrison  as  “apostates.”  We  never  heard  of  their  making 
any  attempts  at  new  Anti-Slavery  Church  organizations.  If 
any  of  them  did  afterwards  break  off  their  connection  from 
“ pro-slavery  Churches,”  it  must  have  been,  we  think,  by  dis- 
carding all  Church  organizations.  As  for  the  rest,  they  stood 
in  the  same  pro-slavery  ecclesiastical  relations  with  the  mem- 
bers of  the  “New”  organization,  who  were  and  still  are 
denounced  as  untrue,  for  standing  in  precisely  the  same 
ecclesiastical  relations.  The  historical  evidence  seems  not 
quite  clear  that  the  one  deserved  a welcome  place  in  “ the 
only”  true  Anti-Slavery  Society,  while  the  other  came  justly 
under  the  condemnation  of  seeking  “ the  protection  of  pro- 
slavery Churched.” 

But,  in  addition  to  the  “ orthodox,”  there  was  probably  a 
much  greater  number  of  ministers  and  Church  members  con- 
nected with  the  Old  Society,  who  belonged  to  what  are  called 
“the  liberal”  denominations,  as  Universalists  and  Unitarians, 
to  which  we  may  add  Swedenborgians,  not  to  mention  one 
branch  of  “ the  Friends.”  If  to  these  we  add  numbers  who, 
though  not  technically  Church  members,  assisted  in  sustain- 
ing Churches,  and  ministers,  and  religious  sects  of  some  sort, 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM.  549 

we  shall  find,  if  we  mistake  not,  a large  body  of  men  con- 
nected with  the  American  Anti-Slavery  Society,  who  were, 
and  still  are,  supporters  of  the  different  religious  sects.  We 
should  not  be  surprised  to  be  assured  that  they  still  constitute 
a considerable  majority  of  the  members  of  the  Society. 

Except  in  the  case  of  the  “Friends,”  it  will  not  probably 
be  claimed  that  the  sects  just  mentioned  are  more  free  from 
the  imputation  of  being  pro-slavery  than  the  sects  denomi- 
nated “evangelical”  or  “orthodox.”  As  being  more  recent 
in  their  origin,  they  may  have  extended  less  into  the  slave 
States  than  some  others.  They  may  be,  from  the  same  cause, 
less  easily  controlled  by  their  leaders.  There  is  the  less  ex- 
cuse for  their  being  pro-slavery,  but,  as  sects,  they  nevertheless 
are  so.  Of  few  of  their  local  congregations,  perhaps,  could 
it  be  said  otherwise.  As  sects,  (most  commonly  as  local 
churches,)  they  have  deprecated  Anti-slavery  agitation,  de- 
nounced abolitionists,  fostered  prejudice  against  color,  and 
by  the  Votes  of  the  majority  of  their  members,  maintained 
slavery  at  the  ballot-box.  This  last  item  alone,  according  to 
Mr.  Garrison,  decides  that  they  “ do  not  deserve  the  name  of 
abolitionists.”  Under  this  count,  if  not  some  of  the  others, 
we  must  reckon  most  of  the  “Friends.”  In  the  “ Hicksite  ” 
connection,  Charles  Mariott  and  Isaac  T.  Hopper  were  “ dis- 
owned” for  their  activity  in  Anti-slavery  Societies.  Yet 
abolitionists  in  the  American  Anti-Slavery  Society  continue 
in  that  religious  connection. 

Now  then,  if  the  American  and  Foreign  Anti-Slavery  So- 
ciety deserves  censure,  for  its  support,  through  its  member- 
ship, of  pro-slavery  Churches,  the  American  Anti-Slavery 
Society,  under  the  guidance  and  with  the  consent  of  Mr. 
Garrison,  deserves  the  same  censure,  and  for  the  same  reason. 

If  a majority  of  its  members  sustain  the  old  existing  sects 
and  Churches — then  a majority  of  them  sustain  pro-slavery 
Churches,  and  the  position  of  the  Society  is  thus  defined. 

If,  on  the  contrary,  a majority  of  its  members,  including 
most  of  its  leaders,  support  no  churches  at  all,  either  pro-slavery 
or  anti-slavery,  most  of  them  not  desiring  to  support  any, 


650 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


then  their  complaint  against  those  who  sustain  pro-slavery 
Churches  can  have  comparatively  little  weight,  with  those 
who  understand  their  position  in  respect  to  all  churches. 

Still  farther,  if  a controlling  majority  of  the  Society  (in 
either  case)  regard  it  regular  and  proper  to  receive  and  retain 
members  who  support  pro-slavery  Churches,  then  it  is  evident 
that  no  Anti-Slavery  Society  in  the  country  has  a lower 
standard  of  membership,  so  far  as  the  Church  question  is  con- 
cerned, than  the  American  Anti-Slavery'  Society. 

And  this  is  the  fact  of  the  case,  as  before  shown.  The  So- 
ciety has  no  rule  for  excluding  such  members,  and  Mr.  Garri- 
son says  it  ought  to  have  none.  Thus  much  for  its  exclusive 
claims. 

But  the  comparison  invited  by  those  claims  may  not  end 
here.  Among  those  charged  with  having  separated  from  Mr. 
Garrison,  and  re-organized  “ for  the  protection  of  pro-slavery 
churches,”  we  have  witnessed  a long  protracted  and  widely 
extended  anti-slavery  church  agitation,  resulting  in  a series 
of  secessions,  and  ecclesiastical  and  missionary  re-organiza- 
tions, on  an  anti-slavery  basis.  It  is  natural  and  proper  to 
inquire  after  similar  manifestations  among  the  members  of 
“ the  only  genuine  anti-slavery  society”  that  sets  up  such  a 
high  standard  for  its  neighbors. 

And  where  shall  we  look  for  any  such  manifestations  ? It 
has  been  seen  that  there  has  been,  and  still  is,  sufficient  room 
and  occasion  for  them.  For  the  Society  (on  any  estimate  that 
can  be  made)  contains  not  a few,  ministers  and  others,  con- 
nected with  and  sustaining  pro-slavery  church  organizations. 

On  some  occasions  we  see  names  of  ministers  enrolled  among 
the  active  friends  and  members  of  the  Society.  Some  of  them 
we  know  as  earnest  and  long-tried  laborers  in  the  cause,  and 
under  that  banner.  We  thank  and  honor  them  for  their  anti- 
slavery labors.  But  what  are  the  ecclesiastical  connections 
that  they  sustain  ? To  what  churches  are  they  ministering  ? 
Is  there  one  of  them,  or  are  there  many  of  them,  that  can 
claim  connection  with  an  anti-slavery  church  ? With  a 
church  that,  at  best,  can  be  more  favorably  described  than  a 


SLAVERY  AMD  FREEDOM. 


551 


church  tolerating  an  anti-slavery  minister  and  a few  anti-sla- 
very members,  who,  on  their  part,  agree  to  hold  fellowship 
with  pro-slavery  members  ? Are  the  “ liberal”  churches  often 
in  advance  of  this  position?  Is  “the  negro  pew”  an  abomi- 
nation with  them  ? 

We  ask  these  questions  without  being  able,  with  confidence, 
to  answer  them,  or  being  able  to  specify  an  exception  to  the 
position  indicated  by  them.  There  may  be  exceptions.  We 
think  there  cannot  be  many. 

We  have  known  of  scores,  and  have  heard  of  hundreds  of 
ministers,  who  have  conscientiously  left  their  pro-slavery 
ecclesiastical  connections  to  join  or  establish  anti-slavery  ones, 
or  whose  earnest  anti-slavery  preaching  has  driven  them  from 
their  churches,  or  subjected  them  to  persecutions  from  eccle- 
siastical bodies.  Among  all  these  we  can  recall  to  mind  only 
two  or  three  that  we  think  may  have  been  connected  with 
the  American  Anti-Slavery  Society  since  the  division.  It  is 
to  be  presumed  that  there  are  others,  but  they  are  not  proba- 
bly very  numerous  in  the  comparison  with  those  not  belong- 
ing to  the  Society.* 

There  has  been  a division,  in  some  form,  among  “ Friends” 
in  Indiana,  on  account  of  the  slave  question.  A small  seces- 
sion from  Hicksite  Friends,  perhaps  partly  on  anti-slavery 
ground  and  partly  for  the  enjoyment  of  local  church  inde- 
pendency, has  taken  place  in  Western  blew  York.  In  both 
these  movements  there  must  have  been  members  of  the  Amer- 
ican Anti-Slavery  Society.  These  are  the  only  instances  we 
know  of,  wTith  exception,  perhaps,  of  a few  individuals,  belong- 
ing to  that  Society,  who  may  have  come  into  the  general 
church  secession  movement,  the  Wesleyan,  the  Independent,  or 
the  Presbyterian,  originated  by  and  almost  wholly  composed  of 


* Since  writing  the  above  paragraph,  vre  have  seen  a statement  of  Rev.  Theodore 
Parker,  of  Boston,  that  “ several  Unitarian  clergyman  have  been  driven  from  their 
parishes  in  consequence  of  opposing”  “the  Fugitive  Slave  bill.”  We  think  it  very 
probable  that  some  or  all  these  may  have  been  members  of  the  American  Anti- 
Slavery  Society.  There  may  be  many  others,  of  whom  we  have  no  knowledge. 


552 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


Liberty  party  men,  and  of  those  who  held  what  are  called 
“ evangelical”  views  in  theology. 

We  have  yet  to  hear  of  the  first  Convention  among  minis- 
ters and  church  members  belonging  to  the  “ old”  Society,  to 
consider  their  pro-slavery  church  connections,  and  with  a 
view  to  withdraw  and  re-organize,  if  a reformation  could  not 
be  effected,  or  to  form  an  Anti-Slavery  Missionary  Society. 

In  attending  more  than  a hundred  such  conventions,  we 
have  met  very  few  known  to  us  as  members  of  the  old  So- 
ciety, or  called  Garrisonians.  We  can  remember  still  fewer 
of  them,  if  any,  who  seemed  disposed  to  assist  in  gathering 
anti-slavery  churches,  or  to  favor  anti-slavery  missionary 
societies. 

These  are  negative  statements.  They  are  presented  for 
want  of  information  of  a positive  character.  We  can  tell  less 
of  what  has  been  done,  than  of  what  (to  our  best  knowledge) 
has  not.  The  Liberator,  the  National  Anti-Slavery  Standard, 
and  other  journals  of  that  class,  and  of  the  “ liberal”  sects, 
have  not  afforded  us  the  information,  as  they  should  have 
done,  if  it  were  accounted  important. 

It  is  in  the  same  category  that  we  must  place  the  inquiry, 
How  many,  in  the  old  Society,  have  “come  out”  from  their 
old  church  organizations,  without  organizing  new  ones?  We 
have  no  means  of  forming  an  estimate.  But  we  suppose  they 
can  by  no  means  equal  the  numbers  of  those  in  the  other  So- 
ciety and  in  the  Liberty  party  Avho  have  left  pro-slavery 
churches  and  organized  anti-slavery  ones.  If  the  class  of 
abolitionists  who  repudiate  all  church  organizations  are  not 
far  more  numerous  than  those  who  repudiate  compulsory  civil 
governments,  their  number  cannot  be  great.  And  it  is 
known  that  a very  considerable  number  of  those  among  this 
class  of  abolitionists,  who  reject  such  civil  governments,  are 
church  members  and  pastors  of  churches. 

It  is  but  proper  and  just  to  add,  that  if  Garrisonian  aboli- 
tionists who  are  church  members,  and  who  desire  to  sustain 
church  relations,  have  not,  to  any  extent,  adopted  the  mea- 
sure of  separation  and  re-organization,  as  such  large  numbers 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


553 


of  other  abolitionists  have  done,  they  have  nevertheless  their 
own  way  of  agitating  the  subject,  and  no  one  questions  their 
right  to  mark  out  their  own  course  of  operations.  We  have 
noticed  the  preceding  facts  merely  to  correct  the  erroneous 
statement  that  Garrisonian  abolitionists  are  exclusively  or  pecu- 
liarly free  from  the  inconsistency  of  supporting  pro-slavery 
churches.  Though  we  should  be  glad  to  see  Garrisonian 
Universalists  and  Unitarians  adopting  the  more  stringent  and 
radical  measure  of  separation  and  re-organization,  of  which 
other  abolitionists  have  set  them  an  example ; yet  we  love  to 
see  them  at  work  by  voluntary  associations  of  a denomina- 
tional character,  calculated  to  have  a beneficial  influence  upon 
their  ecclesiastical  associates.  We  record  the  following  speci- 
men with  much  pleasure: 

“ Boston,  May  27,  1852. 

“At  the  session  of  the  Universalist  Moral  Reform  Society,  to-day,  com- 
posed in  part  of  leading  Universalist  ministers,  the  following  resolution  was 
offered,  and  after  discussion  adopted  without  opposition : 

“ Resolved , That  we  view  with  deep  concern  the  present  attitude  of  our 
country  on  the  subject  of  slavery,  believing,  as  we  do,  that  earnest  efforts 
must  be  made  for  the  overthrow  of  slavery,  or  the  just  judgment  of  God 
will  descend  on  our  land;  and  seeing,  with  great  pain,  a disposition  on  the 
part  of  those  called  statesmen  to  patch  up  Compromises,  which  merely 
hide,  but  cannot  cure  the  evil,  we  feel  called  on,  as  Christians,  to  testify 
against  the  unrighteousness  of  slavery,  and  to  request  our  fellow-Christians, 
of  every  sect,  to  unite  with  us  in  striving  to  break  down  that  loathsome 
institution/’ — 1 V.  Y.  Daily  Tribune,  May  28,  1852. 

Swedenborg  IANS,  or  members  of  the  “ New  Jerusalem 
Church,”  who  are  abolitionists,  have  done  effective  service  in 
the  cause,  though  we  have  not  heard  of  any  movements 
among  them  for  severing  religious  connection  from  those  of 
the  same  faith  at  the  South,  who  are  slaveholders.  And 
numbers  of  abolitionists  of  this  sect,  as  among  others  before 
mentioned,  belong  to  the  American  Anti-Slavery  Society. 

From  the  preceding  statements  it  must  not  be  inferred  that 
Mr.  Garrison  has  regarded  it  consistent  for  the  members  of  the 
American  Anti-Slavery  Society  to  continue  their  support  of 
pro-slavery  churches.  They  would  learn  otherwise  from  his 


554 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


general  writings  on  tlie  subject,  as  well  as  by  his  rebukes  of 
the  “ new  organization.”  What  was  “ apostacy”  and  “ hypo- 
crisy” in  the  one  case,  could  not  be  less  than  “ inconsistency” 
in  the  other,  and  as  such  it  has  been  mildly  censured. 

The  “ Society  as  such  ” — whatever  may  have  been  the  po- 
sition of  some  of  its  officers  and  leading  members — bore  a 
similar  testimony.  Its  resolutions  and  the  speeches  of  its 
lecturers,  were  in  conformity  with  the  language  of  Mr.  Garri- 
son. The  question  remains  whether  either  the  Society  or  Mr. 
Garrison  were  consistent  or  just  in  making  so  wide  a distinc- 
tion between  the  supporters  of  pro-slavery  churches  in  their 
own  Society  and  those  in  other  organizations — whether  there 
has  ever  been,  or  now  is,  any  proper  foundation  for  their  ex- 
clusive and  extraordinary  claims  of  being  the  only  true  and 
efficient  Anti-Slavery  Society,  the  only  Society  true  on  the 
Church  question,  while  the  other  Society  is  to  be  spurned  as 
“apostate”  for  its  “ protection  of  pro-slavery  churches.”  With 
the  preceding  statements  of  facts  before  liinp  the  reader  will 
judge. 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


555 


CHAPTER  XLTIX. 

GENERAL  ESTIMATE  OF  THE  AMERICAN  ANTI-SLAVERY  SO- 
CIETY AND  ITS  LAEOR3,  SINCE  1840. 

The  Society  an  earnest  and  active  organization  against  Slavery— Energy,  talents,  and 

perseverance  of  its  leading  members — On  some  points  censured  unjustly No 

heresy  in  placing  Justice  and  Liberty  above  human  “ compacts”  and  the  “ Union” 
— Their  orthodoxy  to  be  distinguished  from  their  heresy — Orthodox  truth  not  to 
be  abjured  because  promulgated  by  them— Pro-slavery  Churches  and  Ministers 
responsible  for  their  aberrations — An  unfaithful  church  and  ministry  must  reap  the 
fruits  of  their  unfaithfulness. 

Dismissing  the  history  of  “ the  only ” true  Anti-Slavery  So- 
ciety in  America,  we  will  proceed  to  consider  the  American 
Anti-Slavery  Society  as  an  earnest  and  active  organization 
against  slavery.  As  such,,  the  Society  (apart  from  its  connection 
with  other  topics,  its  exclusive  claims,  and  its  injustice  to  the 
Liberty  party,  and  to  the  American  and  Foreign  Anti-Slavery 
Society,)  deserves  honorable  mention.  Except  in  the  instances 
and  the  particulars  already  recorded,  and  in  which  its  exclu- 
siveness betrayed  it  into  unworthy  associations,  or  its  false 
theories  withheld  it  from  efficient  political  action,  it  has  been 
doing  good  service  to  the  cause  of  freedom.  It  has  been  one 
among  several  organized  instrumentalities  which  Divine  Provi- 
dence has  been  wielding  against  slavery.  Its  leading  mem- 
bers have  been  persevering  and  untiring.  They  have  ex- 
hibited a fixedness  of  purpose,  and  an  energy  of  resolution 
that  challenge  admiration.  With  talents  of  a high  order,  and 
a hearty  hatred  of  slavery,  they  have  struck  heavy  blows 
which  have  taken  effect,  in  despite  of  all  their  mistakes.  Of 
William  Lloyd  Garrison  it  is  needless  to  say  much.  As  a 
writer,  he  will  take  a high  rank  among  the  strong  men  of  the 


556 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


age.  As  a speaker,  (though  less  celebrated  in  that  depart- 
ment) he  has  a simple,  sober,  solemn,  straightforward  earnest- 
ness that,  with  many  minds,  outweighs  all  charms  of  elocution 
and  arts  of  rhetoric.  Wendell  Phillips  is  among  the  most 
accomplished  orators  of  New  England.  Charles  C.  Burleigh 
is  little  behind  him.  In  power  and  tact  he  may  sometimes  go 
beyond  him.  Edmund  Quincy  has  a sharp  pen  and  a ready 
tongue.  When  he  is  fortunate  enough  to  direct  his  artillery 
against  the  enemies  instead  of  the  friends  of  the  cause  he 
loves,  he  is  sure  to  do  good  execution.  It  would  be  pleasant 
to  mention  others,  and  to  draw  parallels  between  them  and 
such  men  as  Gerrit  Smith,  Beriah  Green,  Alvan  Stewart, 
Myron  Holly,  Samuel  B.  Ward,  William  L.  Chaplin,  and 
others,  of  whose  powers  we  might  have  spoken  in  our  ac- 
count of  the  Liberty  party — and  Frederick  Douglass  and 
others  who  have  made  a trial  of  both  platforms.  But  we 
must  desist.  Prominent  abolitionists  have  been  too  much 
villified  and  too  much  praised.  They  have  too  much  lauded 
and  too  much  censured  each  other.  Mutual  flattery  (so  seem- 
ingly necessary  in  the  ranks  of  the  persecuted)  erects  hierar- 
chies, and  these  occasion  schisms,  and  beget  confusion  of 
tongues.  Divine  Providence,  in  the  meantime,  vindicates  its 
own  claims  to  superintendency,  and  to  the  glory  of  every  re- 
formatory achievement. 

On  some  points,  respecting  which  Mr.  Garrison  has  been 
much  censured,  even  among  earnest  friends  of  freedom,  we 
cannot,  ourselves,  join  in  the  censure. 

Though  he  may  have  erred  in  swerving  from  our  own  “or- 
thodox” estimate  of  the  divine  inspiration  of  the  Hebrew 
prophets,  we  cannot  see  that  he  has  sinned  against  orthodoxy 
or  the  Bible,  in  repeating  and  in  emulating  the  terrible  de- 
nunciations of  the  Hebrew  prophets  and  of  Christ  himself, 
against  a priesthood  that  strikes  hands  with  oppressors. 

Though  (misled  by  the  Federal  Courts,  the  Federal  Admin- 
istration, and  the'  prevailing  public  sentiment,)  he  may  have 
misinterpreted  the  Federal  Constitution,  as  we  think  he  has, 
we  cannot  say  that  he  has  erred  in  declaring  such  a constitu- 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


557 


lion,  as  thus  construed,  in  the  strong  language  of  scripture,  “ a 
covenant  with  death  and  an  agreement  with  hell.”  We  should 
feel  that  we  were  putting  the  Constitution  above  the  Bible, 
and  above  humanity,  and  above  conscience,  and  above  God, 
should  we  say  otherwise. 

He  may  have  erred  in  demanding,  in  unqualified  terms,  the 
immediate  dissolution  of  the  Union,  as  a means  of  abolishing 
slavery.  It  may  be  that  the  Union  furnishes  the  best  occa- 
sions of  agitation,  the  best  means  of  abolition,  with  a consti- 
tution rightly  construed.  It  may  be  that  our  relations  to  the 
slave  forbid  our  virtual  desertion  of  him,  by  a dissolution  of 
the  Union.  Here  are  things  to  be  considered — perhaps  to  be 
determined  by  coming  events. 

So  far  as  Hr.  Garrison  and  his  associates,  and  their  Society, 
have  contributed  to  bring  this  great  problem  before  the  people, 
so  far  as  they  have  rebuked  the  servility  that  dares  not  “cal- 
culate the  value  of  the  Union”  at  a time  when  the  Federal 
Administration  declares  the  price  to  be  the  surrendry  of  free- 
dom ; so  far  as  they  have  helped  to  expose  the  atheism  that, 
in  the  name  of  religion,  and  from  the  pulpit,  and  by  perver- 
sions of  the  Bible,  has  attempted  to  deify  “the  Union”  in 
rivalry  and  in  defiance  of  Jehovah,  bidding  us  disobey  Him 
by  obeying  the  Fugitive  Slave  Bill,  (by  which  it  is  said  the 
Union  is  to  be  preserved)  so  far  they  have  deserved  well  of 
their  country,  have  done  service  to  the  cause  of  freedom,  and 
have  vindicated  the  first  principles  of  true  religion. 

It  is  said  that  some  of  these  men  have  become  infidels.* . If 
it  be  so,  under  what  influences  have  they  become  such  ? If 
it  be  so,  what  is  the  proper  cure  of  such  infidelity  ? If  it  be 
so,  shall  we  repudiate  the  truths  they  utter  because  thejr  have 
uttered  them  ? Should  a Witherspoon  withhold  or  blot  his 
signature  from  the  Declaration  of  “self-evident  truths”  be- 
cause penned  by  a Jefferson,  or  vindicated  by  a Paine  ? That 
must  be  a sickly,  purblind,  faint-hearted,  half-doubting  “ or- 
thodoxy,” that  fails  to  recognize  or  fears  to  honor  the  essen- 
tials of  its  own  creed,  on  the  lips  of  a heretic.  Heresy  lives 
upon  its  retained  orthodox  truths.  It  drives  its  most  brisk 


558 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


and  most  lucrative  business  upon  its  capital  of  suclr  truths, 
cast  aside,  forgotten,  or  unwisely  relinquished  to  them,  by  the 
conservators  of  orthodoxy.  The  orthodox  should  learn  to 
discriminate  between  the  truths  and  the  heresies  of  Mr.  Gar- 
rison and  his  associates.  There  is  no  cause  for  alarm.  Their 
orthodoxy  will  stand.  Their  heresy  will  fall.  The  Bible  is 
in  no  danger.  The  Sabbath,  the  Church,  the  Ministry,  the 
ordinances  of  the  gospel,  and  civil  government,  are  in  no 
danger.  They  will  come  brighter  out  of  the  ordeal.  They 
will  be  better  understood  and  more  highly  valued,  though 
those  who  have  perverted  them  may  be  less  esteemed,  and 
held  mainly  responsible  for  their  temporary  disrepute. 

When  the  Church  and  the  Ministry — Heaven’s  own  ap- 
pointed organizations  for  promoting  human  progress — lag 
behind  the  necessities  of  a progressive  age : when  they  do 
worse  than  this,  and  throw  themselves  as  blocks  under  the 
chariot  wheels  of  the  Messiah,  they  must,  of  necessity,  reap  the 
fruits  of  their  unfaithfulness.  The  work  of  human  redemp- 
tion, if  “ orthodoxy”  be  true,  must  go  on,  in  despite  of  them, 
and,  though  it  crushes  them.  The  sublime  truths  of  their 
creed,  in  their  practical  form  and  extended  social  applications, 
must  find  utterance.  And  “ if  these  hold  their  Deace,  the  stones 
of  the  street”  shall  find  tongues  for  the  task,  and  “ shall  cry 
out.”  We  hold  it  altogether  and  distinctively  “orthodox” 
to  say  this,  and  to  add  that  “ the  eternal  purpose  of  redeeming 
mercy”  requires  the  chastisement,  and,  if  not  thus  reclaimed, 
the  removal  of  a church  and  ministry  that  cannot  “ open  their 
mouths  for  the  dumb.”  The  true  Church  and  the  true  minis- 
try, not  yet  extinct,  (and  already  striking  deep  their  roots) 
will  survive. 

The  same  principle  applies  to  abolitionists  -themselves.  If 
untrue  to  their  task,  they  must  be  displaced  by  a better 
instructed  and  more  stable  generation,  who  will  come  after 
them. 


. SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


559 


CHAPTER  XL VIII. 

REVIEW  OF  THESE  DIVISIONS  AND  THEIR  RESULTS. 

No  body  of  abolitionists  free  from  mistakes — Natural  tendencies  to  division  in  an 
age  of  progress — Overruling  Providence  of  God — Good  resulting  from  evil— Ten- 
dency of  tbe  division  to  reaeb,  witb  anti-slavery  truth,  opposite  classes — An  anti- 
dote to  the  fear  of  centralized  power — Democratic  phase  of  development — No 
escape  from  abolitionism  of  some  phase — Objection  against  anti-slavery  “ measures ” 
becoming  obsolete — A sufficient  variety  of  measures  to  accommodate  all  earnest 
men — The  main  question,  now,  a question  of  measures — This  question  rapidly 
narrowing  down — A great  work  to  complete  the  enterprise,  but  an  impossibility 
to  undo  what  has  been  done — An  indefinite  amount  of  half-developed  abolition 
ism  needing  guidance. 


In  a review  of  the  divisions  among  abolitionists,  we  may 
see  much  to  rebuke  human  pride,  and  much  to  exalt  the  super- 
intending Providence  of  God — much  to  admonish,  and  much 
to  inspire  hope. 

Ko  class  or  organization  of  abolitionists  can  claim  exemp- 
tion from  mistakes.  Hone  of  them  have  been  free  from 
blemishes,  inconsistencies  and  defects.  To  pretend  it,  would 
be  to  give  evidence  of  partiality.  If  one  of  the  societies  has 
crippled  itself  by  erratic  progression — if  the  other  has  failed  to 
make  all  the  progress  that  the  crisis  demanded — if  the  Liberty 
party,  except  a handful,  lost  its  hold  upon  its  “ one  idea”  by 
refusing  to  apply  it  in  every  direction,  in  the  Church  and  in 
the  State — if  Liberty  League  men  attempted  a political  organi- 
zation without  the  previous  preparation  and  selection  of  mate- 
rials— if  the  Free  Soil  party  sought  strength  and  comprehen- 
siveness in  numbers,  rather  than  in  a high  tone  of  political 
ethics — there  was  nothing,  in  all  this,  out  of  the  ordinary 
range  of  diversity,  in  times  of  revolution  and  progress.  When- 
ever a’ mighty  truth,  vitalized  and  glowing,  is  thrown  into  a 


560 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


community,  like  a mass  of  melted  metal  into  running  water, 
the  commotion  tends  to  separate  the  disturbing  force  into 
shapeless  fragments.  But  the  principle  of  unity  is  not  thus 
destroyed.  The  parts  may  afterwards  come  together  and 
adhere.  The  unity  of  truth,  will,  in  the  end,  be  revealed. 

Under  the  good  Providence  of  God,  the  dissensions  among 
abolitionists,  however  humiliating  to  them,  and  however  mis- 
chievous in  some  respects,  have  been  over-ruled,  in  other 
respects,  for  good.  Abolitionism,  before  the  division,  was  a 
powerful  elixir,  in  the  phial  of  one  anti-slavery  organization, 
corked  up  tight,  and  carried  about  for  exhibition.  By  the 
division,  the  phial  was  broken  and  the  contents  spilled  over 
the  whole  surface  of  society,  where  it  has  been  working  as  a 
leaven,  ever  since,  till  the  mass  is  beginning  to  upheave. 

Had  abolitionists  remained  in  one  compact  and  well  defined 
body,  with  a uniform  mode  of  action,  the  whole  mass  of  the 
community  might  not  have  been  as  soon  reached,  and  as  tho- 
roughly permeated  by  them.  A powerful  and  growing 
National  Anti-Slavery  Society,  before  the  division,  with  its 
affiliated  auxiliaries,  and  its  central  committee,  was  already 
exciting  jealousy  against  the  cause.  It  was  matter  of  fear 
among  its  friends.  Dr.  Channing  was  not  alone  nor  singular 
in  this  feeling.  It  was  more  operative  in  the  mass  of  the 
community  than  most  abolitionists  supposed.  Had  the  Society 
remained  united,  and  had  its  means  and  operations  increased, 
this  element  of  resistance  would  have  soon  made  itself  felt. 
By  the  division  of  the  great  National  Society,  and  the  conse- 
quent dwarfing  of  the  two  rival  divisions,  this  central  point 
of  dreaded  influence  was  rendered  almost  invisible.  Divided 
further  and  cut  up  by  state,  county,  city,  town,  and  village 
Committees,  the  work  was  going  on,  everywhere,  without  pre- 
senting an  alarming  concentration  of  power  anywhere.  The 
democratic  principle  in  abolitionism  underwent  a democratic 
phase  of  development,  and  propagated  itself  as  Christianity 
did,  when  the  disciples,  that  were  scattered  abroad,  went  every- 
where, preaching  the  word.  Yet  the  element  of  power,  what- 
ever it  might  be,  in  the  principle  of  episcopal  supervision,  had 


SLAVERY  AKD  FREEDOM. 


561 


its  medium  left,  for  those  who  chose  to  employ  it,  and  they 
could  look  for  this,  to  the  centre  of  spiritual  unity  most  con- 
genial to  them.  The  division  between  Rome  and  Byzantium 
did  not  destroy  Christianity  or  the  Church. 

With  the  rise  of  the  distinct  political  party,  there  were 
manifested  other  phases  of  development.  There  was  moral 
suasion  abolitionism  and  political  abolitionism.  Then  came 
also  Church  Reform  abolitionism — Missionary  abolitionism — 
Methodist,  Baptist,  Congregational,  Independent,  and  Presby- 
terian abolitionism.  Politicians  were  careful  to  supply  a 
Whig  and  a Democratic  abolitionism.  No  man  knew  where  to 
go  to  escape  the  infection.  He  could  not  elude  it  in  the  reli- 
gious sect,  nor  in  the  political  party.  If  he  cried  out  against 
abolitionism  as  “bigotry,  priestcraft,  and  Puritanism,”  behold  1 
there  was  the  most  rampant  abolitionism,  at  his  elbow,  railing 
lustily  against  “bigotry,  priestcraft,  Puritanism,  and  pro- 
slavery ism” — placing  them  all  in  a row.  If  one  sought,  in 
view  of  this,  to  disparage  abolitionism  as  heretical  and  infidel, 
behold ! the  gathering  of  an  anti-slavery  conference  and  prayer 
meeting  met  his  vision,  and  on  his  ears  came  quotations  from 
Isaiah,  and  Hopkins,  and  Wesley,  and  Edwards.  The  sim- 
pleton who  had  but  just  learned  from  his  political  editor  to 
curse  the  abolitionists,  was  puzzled  to  find  the  same  editor,  or 
perhaps  his  Congressional  candidate,  professing  to  be  as  good 
an  abolitionist  as  anybody. 

And  when  earnest  and  even  acrimonious  debates  among 
abolitionists  themselves,  arrested  the  attention  of  the  commu- 
nity, displacing  the  controversy  between  abolitionists  and 
their  opposers,  a remarkable  effect  was  produced.  Thousands 
now  heard  or  read  them  for  the  first  time.  The  issue  before 
the  public  mind  was  soon  changed.  The  question  was  not 
whether  slavery  ought  to  be  abolished,  nor  ivhen  it  should 
be — but,  by  what  methods  and  motives  should  the  people  be 
brought  up  to  the  work.  The  previous  question  was  taken 
for  granted,  as  not  needing  debate.  A community  could  not 
long  listen  to  able  debates  on  such  a question  without  uncon- 
sciously sliding  into  the  idea  that,  in  some  way,  the  work  was 


562 


GREAT  STRUGGLE  BETWEEN 


to  be  done.  The  “ duty  and  safety  of  immediate  and  uncondi- 
tional emancipation”  had  been  settled,  among  intelligent  men, 
by  “the  West  India  experiment.” 

With  all  the  varied  modes  of  proposed  and  attempted  anti- 
slavery agitation  and  action,  arising  out  of  these  divisions  and 
discussions,  another  objection  against  abolitionists  has  become 
obsolete — “We  do  not  approve  of  your  measures!” — “ Which 
of  them?  ” might  be  the  inquiry  in  return.  It  might  be  dif- 
ficult to  conceive  of  any  measure,  which  some  class  of  pro- 
fessed abolitionists  have  not  proposed.  And  no  small  progress 
has  been  made  towards  a disposal  of  the  rival  claims  thus 
presented. 

It  may  be  a great  work  to  carry  the  enterprise  forward  to 
its  consummation.  But  it  would  be  a more  difficult,  nay,  an 
impossible  task,  to  carry  it  back  to  where  it  stood  twenty 
years  ago.  There  is  an  indefinite  amount  of  latent,  half- 
developed,  incipient  abolitionism,  in  the  country,  needing 
guidance,  that  is  not  now  embraced  under  any  existing  or- 
ganization. It  seems  waiting  for  the  solution  of  a few 
remaining  problems,  of  which  we  shall  treat  in  the  next 
chapter. 


SLAVERY  AND  FREEDOM. 


563 


\ 

CHAPTER  XL IX. 

DIFFERENT  VIEWS  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION,  AND  OF  THE 
LEGALITY  OF  SLAVERY. 

Vital  importance  of  tlie  questions — Alternatives  presented  by  them — Almost  the 
only  questions  remaining  to  he  settled — All  public  business  involving  the  Slave 
question  must  be  transacted  on  some  theory  of  the  Constitution,  and  of  the  legality 
of  slavery — All  anti-slavery  action  must  assume  some  theory — Three  General  Views 
of  the  Constitution — 1.  The  ultra  Southern  or  Calhoun  theory — 2.  The  prevalent 
theory  of  the  “ Compromises” — 3.  The  construction  in  favor  of  Liberty — Previous 
question  of  the  legality  of  slavery — References  to  the  preceding  history — Princi- 
ples of  interpretation — Features  of  the  Constitution — Comparison  o&  the  three 
theories— Results. 

The  relation  of  the  Federal  Constitution  to  slavery  must 
have  an  important  bearing  on  the  Slavery  Question  in  America. 

Whether  an  oath  to  support  the  Constitution  be  an  oath  to 
support  slavery,  is  only  one  of  the  many  important  questions 
involved  in  it. 

If  the  Constitution  requires  us  to  support  slavery,  then  the 
Constitution  requires  us  to  overthrow  our  own  liberties,  to 
declare  war  against  universal  humanity,  to  rebel  against  God, 
and  incur  his  displeasure. 

If  the  Constitution  does  this,  it  is  to  be  either  amended,  or 
overthrown.  Otherwise,  we  must  submit  to  be  slaves  to  one 
portion  of  our  fellow-men,  while  assisting  to  make  slaves  of 
another  portion  of  them — we  must  throw  off  our  allegiance 
to  God,  for  the  sake  of  maintaining  allegiance  to  the  deadly 
enemy  of  ourselves,  our  country,  and  our  race. 

But  if  the  Constitution  be  in  favor  of  liberty  and  against 
slavery,  then  it  is  our  duty  and  interest  to  wield  it  for  the 
overthrow  of  slavery  and  the  redemption  of  our  country  from 
the  heel  of  the  slave  power. 


564 


THE  SLAVERY  QUESTION 


In  tlie  one  case,  our  line  of  march  out  of  Egyptian  bondage  j|  8 
lies  through  the  bloody  sea  of  Revolution — in  the  other,'!)] 
through  the  legitimate  action  of  our  government,  as  already  h 
organized.  ! i 

In  the  progress  of  the  slave  question  we  have  now  arrived  j 
at  that  point  at  which  the  legality  and  the  constitutionality  ] 
of  slavery  are  among  the  very  few  questions  that  remain  to 
be  settled.  , 

The  inherent  criminality  of  slavery  and  of  slaveholding,  f 
their  utter  repugnance  to  natural  justice,  to  Christianity,  to  L 
the  law  of  nature,  to  the  law  of  God,  to  the  principles  of  de*:  j 
mocracy,  to  the  liberties  of  the  country — no  longer  present  i 
questions  for  serious  discussion  among  the  great  body  of  I 
intelligent  citizens  in  the  non-slaveholding  States.  Here  and ; : 
there  a superannuated  ecclesiastic  (who  has,  perhaps,  a son  at  I ;i 
the  South,  or  in  a college  seeking  southern  patronage)  may  ■ 
thumb  ever  his  Polyglot,  and  pretend  to  find  a justification 
of  slavery.  But  nobody  believes  him.  His  disclaimers  and 
self-contradictions  prove  that  he  does  not — even  in  his  dotage 
— believe  it  himself!  His  friends  shield  him  from  the  im- 
pending avalanche  of  public  scorn,  by  saying — “ Do  let  him 
alone — he  can  do  no  mischief — he  is  not  worth  minding !” 

.The  settlement  of  this  question  has  disposed  of  nearly  all 
the  one  hundred  and  one  objections  that,  fifteen  years  ago, 
were  confidently  urged  against  the  doctrines  and  measures  of 
abolitionists.  In  most  circles,  it  would  be  difficult  to  broach 
them  without  being  voted  a bore. 

Almost  the  only  remaining  exceptions  are  those  that  clus- 
ter around  the  supposed  “guaranties”  or  “compromises  of 
the  Constitution  ” — the  “ legal  rights  ” — the  “ vested  immuni- 
ties” of  the  slaveholder.  Take  away  these,  and  what  is 
there  left? 

The  Church  question,  as  well  as  the  political  question,  as  it 
lies  in  many  minds,  hinges  just  here.  The  Church  must  not 
speak  against  Csesar — must  be  in  subjection  to  “ the  powers 
that  be" — and  that,  too,  without  stopping  to  inquire  whether 
they  be,  or  be  not!  It  may  be  said  that  the  Church — with  her 


IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


565 


Bible  in  her  hand — should  be  able  to  shape  her  course,  with- 
out asking  leave  of  the  Federal  Constitution.  So  she  should. 
And  in  so  doing,  she  should  throw  out  principles  before  the 
world  that  would  help  us  to  definitions  of  “law”  and  “legal 
rights  ” — and  enable  us  to  expound  Constitutions  correctly,  in 
the  light  of  UNIVERSAL  LAW. 

It  is  difficult  to  dispose  of  any  public  business  in  Congress, 
without  involving  the  slave  question,  and  this  involves  at 
once  the  question  whether  the  Constitution  sustains  slavery — 
whether  the  slaveholder  has  a legal  right  to  the  slave. 

If  there  is  to  be  any  political  action  against  Slavery,  under 
the  Federal  Constitution,  we  must  know  what  the  Constitu- 
tion authorizes  us  to  do  in  the  premises.  If  it  “ guaranties  ” 
Slavery,  then  it  forbids  us  to  do  any  thing.  If  it  has  “ com- 
promises,” they  limit  our  action,  and  we  must  know  their 
extent.  The  questions  between  Liberty  Party  (as  it  was)  Free 
Soil  Part}’,  Liberty  League  or  present  Liberty  Party,  turn, 
very  much,  on  the  Constitutional  question. 

If  the  Federal  Judiciary  is  to  be  used,  either  as  a weapon 
of  assault  upon  the  Slave  Power,  or  as  a shield  of  defense 
against  its  attacks,  the  relation  of  the  Federal  Constitution 
to  Slavery  and  the  legality  of  Slavery  become  the  main  points 
at  issue  before  the  Courts. 

In  every  view  of  the  task  before  us,  the  assumed  legality 
and  constitutionality  of  Slavery  thrust  themselves  directly 
across  our  path,  and  come  under  our  eye.  It  is  one  cheering 
sign  that  we  have  traveled  nearly  the  whole  distance  from 
our  starting-place  to  the  citadel,  when  so  many  familiar  ob- 
jects and  once  formidable  obstacles  are  distanced,  and  only 
two  or  three  remain  to  be  grappled  with. — Overcome  these, 
and  the  work  is  accomplished. 

The  various  views  of  the  Constitution  may  perhaps  be 
classified  under  three  general  heads  : 

First,  the  idea  that  slavery,  as  a lawful  and  legitimate 
interest,  in  common  with  other  rightful  and  legitimate  inter- 
ests, is  entitled  to  the  protection  of  the  Federal  Government, 
and  that  it  was  established  for  that  end. 


566 


THE  SLAVERY  QUESTION 


Second,  the  idea  that,  although  slavery  is  not  a rightful 
and  legitimate  interest,  its  existence  is  nevertheless  tolerated, 
and  the  Government  restricted  from  abolishing  it. 

Third,  the  idea  that  slavery  is  an  usurpation,  an  abuse  from 
the  beginning , that  it  has  never  been  legalized,  that  the  Consti- 
tution has  not  legalized  it,  that  consequently  it  remains  illegal, 
and  that  it  is  the  duty  of  the  Federal  Government  (as  well  as 
of  the  State  Governments),  in  all  its  branches  (legislative, 
judicial,  and  executive)  to  treat  it  as  illegal,  and  repress  it,  as 
any  other  crime  or  treason  against  the  essential  rights  of  the 
people  is  to  be  repressed. 

The  limits  of  the  present  work  will  not  allow  of  extended 
statements  of  the  arguments  upon  which  these  conflicting 
theories  are  based.  The  most  we  can  attempt  is  to  give  such 
a view  of  them  as  may  enable  the  reader  to  see  what  they  are , 
that  he  may  examine  them  at  his  leisure. 

I.  The  theory  first  mentioned  is  the  generally  prevalent 
one  at  the  South.  With  the  more  ultra  (the  Calhoun  or  Caro- 
linian school)  it  would  seem  that  slavery  is  considered  not 
only  a legitimate  interest,  but  the  leading,  the  paramount  one, 
to  which  all  other  interests  are  to  give  way.  The  mildest,  the 
most  modified  form  in  which  this  theory  is  held  (or  which  is 
now  represented  by  the  Southern  delegation  in  Congress),  is 
that  of  the  border  States,  and  is  expounded  by  Henry  Clay. 
It  may  indeed  talk  of  “ compromises,”  but  by  Mr.  Clay’s  own 
showing,  they  give  everything  to  slavery,  and  nothing  to 
freedom.  The  Fugitive  Slave  bill,  defended  by  Mr.  Clay, 
consists  with  the  mildest  type  of  this  theory. 

This  theory  must  repose,  for  its  basis,  either  upon  the  idea 
of  Calhoun,  McDuffie,  Dew,  &c.,  that  slavery  is  originally  and 
abstractly  right,  and  that  it  presents  the  best  state  of  society  ; 
or  else  upon  the  idea  of  Mr.  Clay,  that  “what  the  law  makes 
property  is  property” — and  that  “ two  hundred  years  of  negro 
slavery  have  sanctioned  and  sanctified”  the  principle  of  pro- 
perty in  man.  To  complete  the  argument,  it  must  be  shown 
either  that  the  Constitution  affirms  the  original  right  of 
slavery,  or  the  principle  that  involves  it;  or  that  it  sanctions 


IN  THE  UNITED  STATES.  667 

and  ratifies  the  process  of  its  previous  legality,  as  described 
by  Mr.  Clay. 

II.  The  second  theory  of  the  Constitution,  that  of  a “com- 
promise” between  slavery  and  freedom,  is  so  vague  and 
unsettled,  and  is  exhibited  in  such  a variety  of  shades,  that  it 
is  difficult  to  exhibit  it  with  much  accuracy  or  order.  The 
field  is  wide  enough  to  accommodate  Daniel  Webster  and 
Moses  Stuart,  on  the  one  hand,  shaking  hands  with  Henry 
Clay  over  the  Fugitive  Slave  bill ; and  the  leaders  of  the 
Free  Soil  party,  on  the  other,  intent  on  “divorcing  the  Fede- 
ral Government  from  the  support  of  slavery.”  However  wide 
the  chasm  between  these  opposing  parties  may  be,  they  occupy 
the  common  platform  of  the  supposed  “ compromises  of  the 
Constitution,”  which  have  never  been  satisfactorily  agreed 
upon  among  those  who  recognize  them. 

Whether  the  alleged  '■'■guaranties1'1  of  slavery  should  be 
assigned  a place  under  this  theory  or  the  preceding  one,  may 
seem,  at  first  view,  uncertain.  Perhaps  they  belong  to  both. 
The  “compromises,”  as  Mr.  Webster  understands  them, 
involve  a pretty  strong  “guaranty.”  And  the  compromises 
of  those  who  would  only  “ divorce  the  Federal  Government 
from  the  support  of  slavery,”  would  seem  to  involve  a gua- 
ranty that — within  a certain  enclosure,  however  bounded — 
slavery  should  not  be  disturbed.  It  is  not  known  to  the 
writer  that  any  of  the  friends  of  liberty  who  admit  the  doc- 
trine of  the  “ compromises,”  and  who  yet  adhere  to  the  Con- 
stitution, would  do  otherwise  than  “ guaranty”  to  the  slave- 
holder the  right  of  seizing  his  fugitive  slave  in  the  free  States, 
provided  that,  by  jury  trial  and  other  safeguards,  due  security 
be  given  that  none  except  fugitives  from  slavery  be  given  up. 
This  is  a “ guaranty”  that  introduces  slavery,  in  one  of  its 
most  odious  features,  into  the  free  States  themselves.  Being 
done  by  the  conceded  structure  of  the  Federal  Government, 
and  assented  to  by  the  free  States,  it  seems  not  to  consist  with 
the  idea  of  divorcing  either  the  State  or  Federal  Government 
from  slavery.  The  magnitude  of  this  “ guaranty”  is  seen  in 
the  contrast  between  the  position  of  the  Canadas,  where  the 


568 


THE  SLAVERY  QUESTION 


fugitive  is  safe,  and  that  of  a non-slaveholding  State  of  this 
Union,  permitting,  under  any  modifications,  the  re-capture  of 
a fugitive  from  slavery. 

Southern  statesmen,  of  the  school  of  Mr.  Clajr,  understand 
“ the  compromises  of  the  Constitution”  to  involve  ample 
“ guaranties.”  Those  of  the  ultra  Southern  school,  have  some- 
times, we  believe,  disclaimed  the  proper  idea  of  “ guaranties,” 
because  they  conceived  that  it  might  involve  the  principle 
that  the  right  of  slaveholding  was  held  under  the'  Federal 
Constitution,  instead  of  the  original  and  absolute  State  sover- 
eignty claimed  by  them.  They  hold  the  Federal  Government 
to  be  the  servant  and  instrument  of  the  slave  power,  rather 
than  its  conservator  and  patron. 

The  most  that  any  of  the  friends  of  freedom,  admitting 
“the  compromises”  and  yet  adhering  to  the  Constitution, 
could  claim  under  their  theory,  would  perhaps  be  included  in 
the  following : * 

1.  The  rightful  power  of  Congress  to  abolish  slavery  in  the 
Federal  District  and  Territories,  including  the  idea  that  it  is 
unconstitutional  in  the  Federal  District. 

4 

2.  The  right  to  prevent  the  extension  of  slavery  into  new 
territories,  and  to  refuse  the  admission  of  new  slave  States. 

3,.  The  right  to  abolish  the  slave  trade  between  the  States, 
coastwise  and  inland. 

4.  The  right  of  the  free  States  to  insist  on  the  jury  trial 
and  other  securities,  to  prevent  others  than  fugitives  from 
slavery  from  being  seized  and  carried  back  as  slaves. 

5.  The  restriction  of  the  right  to  reclaim  fugitives  to  the 
citizens  of  the  original  thirteen  States  now  permitting  slavery, 
to  the  exclusion  of  the  right  of  citizens  of  the  Federal  Dis- 
trict, Territories,  and  States,  admitted  since  the  adoption  of 
the  present  Constitution. 

6.  The  right  to  refuse  recognizing  the  legality  of  slavery  in 
Louisiana  and  Florida  where,  by  the  terms  of  the  Treaty  of 
Cession,  the  '■'‘inhabitants'1''  were  to  be  received  as  “ citizens  of  the 
United-  States .” 

7.  The  right  of  the  Federal  Government  to  decline  the  use 


IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


569 


of  its  diplomacy,  and  other  powers,  in  sustaining  directly  or 
indirectly  the  institution  of  slavery,  except  in  the  case  of  sup- 
pressing a servile  insurrection— another  “guaranty”  included 
in  the  theory  of  “compromise” — if  we  rightly  understand 
that  theory. 

We  are  not  aware  that  any  abolitionists  conceding  the 
“compromises  of  the  Constitution” — yet  adhering  to  their 
allegiance  to  it — have  claimed  anything  more  under  it  than 
this. 

This  leaves  to  the  several  slave  states  the  right  of  main- 
taining slavery  as  long  as  they  please,  and  yet  remaining  in 
the  Union,  with  the  right,  under  modifications,  of  making  the 
free  states  their  hunting-ground  for  fugitives. 

It  concedes  the  duty  of  the  Federal  Government  and  the 
free  states  under  the  Constitution,  to  assist  in  putting  down 
insurrections  of  slaves. 

“ The  Almighty  has  no  attributes,”  says  Mr.  Jefferson, 
“that  could  take  sides  with  us  in  such  a contest.”  Those 
who  construe  the  Constitution  as  including  such  “ compro- 
mises” and  “guaranties,”  and  who  nevertheless  cling  to  the 
Constitution  and  cry  out  against  anti-slavery  disunionists, 
would  do  well  to  “count  the  cost”  of  such  a contest,  which 
seems  to  be  hastening,  and  ask  themselves  whether  their 
forces  are  sufficient  for  the  emergency,  and  whether  it  be 
quite  safe  and  prudent  to  occupy  their  present  position.  Is  it 
consistent  for  abolitionists— is  it  right  or  wise  for  the  non- 
slaveholding states  to  adhere  to  the  “Union”  and  to  the 
“ Constitution  ” as  thus  construed  ? 

III.  We  come  to  consider  the  construction  of  the  Constitu- 
tion that  acknowledges  none  of  these  compromises  and  guar- 
anties. 

This  construction  is  connected  with  another  idea  lying  back 
of  it,  of  the  illegality  of  slavery  before  the  Constitution  was 
formed. 

It  is  not  commonly  supposed  that  the  Constitution  originated 
legal  slavery,  or  gave  to  it  a validity  that  it  did  not  possess 


570 


THE  SLAVERY  QUESTION 


before.  The  two  theories  already  described,  do  not  include 
such  an  idea.  The  most  ultra  of  the  Southern  expositors  of 
the  Constitution  would  most  indignantly  spurn  it.  And  the 
theory  of  “compromises”  supposes  something  already  existing 
to  be  the  subject  of  the  compromise. 

If  there  was  no  legal  slavery  to  be  compromised  or  guaran- 
tied, then  the  Constitution,  however  constructed  or  designed, 
must  have  failed  to  effect  any  such  purpose.  Had  the  docu- 
ment recognized  a certain  river  as  a Western  boundary,  which 
was  afterwards  found  to  be  only  an  imaginary  one,  so  much 
of  the  instrument  must  have  become  obsolete  and  inoperative 
of  course.  Just  so  of  any  supposed  State  laws  or  institutions 
which  should  afterwards  be  found  to  have  had  no  valid  ex- 
istence.* 

The  very  first  question,  then,  (as  some  contend)  is,  whether 
there  was  any  legal  slavery  in  the  States  when  the  Constitu- 
tion was  formed.  The  fact  of  existing  slavery  is  not  to  be 
confounded  with  its  legality.  The  fact  may  have  been  only 
an  usurpation,  an  abuse,  a crime.  The  fact  of  slavery  existed 
a long  time  in  England,  and  the  courts  held  it  to  be  legal. 
But  it  was  afterwards  ascertained  and  decided  that  it  never 
had  been.f 

It  has  lately  come  to  light  that  leading  lawyers  and  states- 
men at  the  South  are  apprehensive  that  their  slavery  is  not 
legal — that  they  are  unwilling  to  have  its  legality  tested  in 
the  courts— that  this  is  the  ground  of  their  objection  to  a 
jury  trial  for  fugitives — and  that  the  Senate  of  the  United 
States,  participating  in  the  same  apprehensions,  has  shaped  its 
legislation  accordingly.^; 


* This  principle  is  thus  recognized  by  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States. 
“ A legislative  act,  founded  upon  a mistaken  opinion  of  what  was  law,  does  not 
change  the  actual  state  of  the  law,  as  to  pre-existing  oases.” — 1 Cranch  1,  Peters' 
Digest , 578. 

t See  Chapter  VI. 

t In  the  recent  debate  in  the  U.  S.  Senate,  on  the  Fugitive  Slave  bill,  Mr.  Mason, 
of  Virginia,  objected  to  the  amendment  of  Mr.  Dayton,  providing  for  a jury  trial, 
because,  said  he : 

“ A trial  by  jury  necessarily  carries  with  it  a trial  of  the  whole  right , and  A TRIAL 


IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


571 


If  slavery  was  legal  at  the  time  when  the  Federal  Consti- 
tution was  adopted,  when  did  it  become  so?  When,  how, 
where,  and  by  whom,  was  it  legalized  ? 

It  will  not  be  said,  except  by  the  ultra  slave  party,  that  the 
right  to  hold  slaves  im  a natural  right,  the  same  as  the  right 
to  own  oxen.  If  it  were  a natural  right,  then  it  would  be  in- 
herent in  all  men,  black  and  white,  slaves  and  slaveholders. 
The  confusion  consequent  on  this  assumption,  sets  it  aside. 

The  best  writers  on  common  law  affirm  that  slavery  is  so 
evidently  contrary  to  the  paramount  law  of  nature,  to  justice, 
to  fundamental  morality,  and  the  law  of  God,  that  it  never 


OF  THE  EIGHT  TO  SERVICE  will  le  gone  into , according  to  all  tlie  forms  of  the 
Court,  in  determining  upon  any  other  fact.” 

And  where  would  be  the  hardship  of  this  ? Why  should  not  the  investigation  take 
place  ? Mr.  Mason  had  told  the  Senate  why. 

“Then,  again,  it  is  proposed,  as  a part  of  the  proof  to  be  adduced  at  the  hearing, 
after  the  fugitive  has  been  re-captured,  that  evidence  shall  he  brought  by  the  claimant 
to  show  that  slavery  i-s  established  in  the  State  from,  which  the  fugitive  has  absconded. 
Now  this  very  thing,  in  a recent  case  in  the  city  of  New  York,  was  required  by  one 
of  the  judges  of  that  State,  which  case  attracted  the  attention  of  the  authorities  of 
Maryland,  and  against  which  they  protested,”  &e.  “ In  that  case  the  State  judge 

went  so  far  as  to  say  that  the  only  mode  of  proving  it  was  by  reference  to  the  Statute 
book.  Such  proof  is  required  in  the  senator’s  amendment ; and  if  he  means  by  this 
that  proof  shall  le  brought  that  slavery  is  established  by  existing  laws , it  is  impossible 
to  comply  with  the  requisition , FOE  NO  SUCH  LAW  CAN  P»E  PRODUCED,  I 
apprehend,  in  ant  of  the  suave  States.  I am  not  aware  that  there  is  A SINGLE 
STATE  in  which  the  institution  is  established  by  positive  law.  On  a former  occa- 
sion, and  on  a different  topic,  it  was  my  duty  to  attempt  to  show  to  the  Senate  that 
no  such  law  was  necessary  for  its  establishment ; CERTAINLY  NONE  COULD  BE 
FOUND,  and  none  was  required  in  any  of  the  States  of  the  Union.” — Liberator, 
Sept.  6,  1S50,  copied  from  the  Washington  Union. 

The  pretense  set  up  by  Mr.  Mason,  that  slavery  can  exist  under  common  law, 
without  positive  law,  is  contradicted  by  numerous  legal  authorities  and  decisions. 
Once,  at  least,  in  Louisiana,  it  was  decided  that  a slave  carried  to  Europe  by  his 
master,  and  returned,  was  free,  because  he  had  been  carried  out  of  the  jurisdiction 
of  the  local  laws  of  Louisiana. 

Mr.  Mason  enlarged  on  the  topic,  and  said  distinctly  that  he  was  not  willing  to 
trust  the  question  with  the  Courts  in  the  free  States.  The  Senate  evidently  partook 
of  his  apprehensions.  They  struck  out  Mr.  Dayton’s  amendment,  lest  it  should  be 
decided  by  the  Courts  that  there  was  no  legal  slavery  in  the  Southern  States.  Hence, 
also,  the  peculiar  structure  of  the  infamous  Fugitive  Slave  bill,  allowing  no  litigation, 
no  counter  evidence,  no  habeas  cwpus,  no  “ due  process  of  law.”  If  slavery  were 
believed  by  the  slaveholders  to  be  legal,  would  they  fear  to  have  the  question  litigated 
in  the  Courts  ? 


572 


THE  SLAVERY  QUESTION 


was,  and  never  can  be,  legalized  ; and  that  no  legislature  nor 
monarch  possesses  the  power  to  make  it  legal. 

But,  not  to  insist  on  this,  and  coming  down  to  the  lowest 
possible  standard  of  legality  that  can  be  made  intelligible,, 
that  of  positive  enactment,  we  inquire-*-When  was  American 
slavery  made  legal,  and  by  whom? 

Was  it  legalized  by  the  permit  of  Queen  Elizabeth  to  John 
Hawkins  to  import  negroes  with  their  own  free  consent  ? By 
the  laws  regulating  the  trade  to  Africa,  but  forbidding  the 
forcible  or  fraudulent  exportation  of  the  natives  ? 

A¥as  it  legalized  by  the  British  Constitution?  By  the  com- 
mon law  of  England  ? By  the  Colonial  Charters  which  re- 
stricted colonial  legislation  to  a conformity  with  English  com- 
mon law  ? The  very  reverse  of  all  this  was  the  fact. 

Was  it  legalized  by  the  acts  of  the  colonial  legislatures  in 
direct  opposition  to  the  Colonial  Charters  ? Or,  are  there  any 
such  enactments  (whether  authorized  by  the  Colonial  Charters 
or  otherwise)  creating  the  relation  of  slavery?  If  neither 
Mr.  Mason  nor  Mr.  Bayly  could  find  an}*-, — and  if  the  whole 
course  of  southern  argument  concerning  slavery  in  Mexico, 
unites  in  the  testimony  that  there  are  none — may  we  not 
pretty  confidently  conclude  that  none  exist  ?* 

Does  not  the  decision  of  Lord  Mansfield,  in  the  Somerset 
case,  (in  1772,)  as  clearly  prove  that  there  was,  then , no  legal 
slavery  in  these  Colonies  as  that  there  was  none  in  England  ? 


* During  the  long  debates  of  1850,  in  Congress,  it  was  abundantly  insisted  by  Mr. 
Bayly,  Mr.  Mason  and  others,  that  slaves  might  now  be  held  legally  in  the  territory 
conquered  from  Mexico,  though  there  were  no  positive  enactments  there  creating 
the  relation.  And  in  proof  they  urged  the  fact  that  slavery  existed  in  our  own  slave 
States  without  any  such  enactments.  The  lame  link  of  the  logic  was  the  monstrous 
assumption  that  slavery  can  legally  exist  without  positive  law , that  is,  on  the  foun- 
dation of  natural  right ! After  his  return  home  to  Virginia,  Mr.  Bayly  addressed  a 
circular  to  his  constituents  repeating  the  argument,  in  which  he  said : 

“ We  all  know  that  slavery  was  introduced  into  the  British  Colonies  of  America 
in  absence  of  a statote,  and  solely  under  the  protection  of  the  Common  law!" 

How  the  “ Cotnmon  law”  protects  slavery  may  be  seen  in  the  decision  of  Lord 
Mansfield  in  the  case  of  Somerset.  But  these  Southern  testimonies  to  the  fact  that 
slavery  in  America  was  introduced  in  the  absence  of  any  statute  creating  it,  may  be 
considered  conclusive  on  that  point,  and  so  of  the  whole  question. 


IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


573 


If,  as  he  decided,  slavery  could  not  legally  exist  in  England, 
without  positive  enactment,  how  could  it  exist  in  these  Colo- 
nies, under  the  same  jurisdiction,  and  the  same  common  law, 
without  positive  enactment  ? 

Was  Slavery  legalized  by  the  Declaration  of  American  In- 
dependence, proclaiming  that  “all  men  are  created  equal  ?” 
On  the  contrary,  if  there  had  been  any  legal  slavery  then 
existing  in  the  Colonies,  would  not  that  unanimous  Declara- 
tion of  the  Colonies  have  abolished  it  ? 

Was  Slavery  legalized  by  the  State  Constitutions  that  were 
framed  soon  after  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  and  re- 
peating the  same  “ self-evident  truths  in  Maryland  and 
other  Southern  States — the  same  as  in  Massachusetts,  where 
the  Courts  decided  that  the  Declaration  had  abolished  Sla- 
very? “ Not  one  of  them  recognized  Slavery ,”  nor  was  there, 
in  one  of  them,  any  authority  conferred  on  the  legislature  to 
enslave  any  body. 

Was  Slavery  legalized  by  the  Articles  of  Confederation, 
that  made  no  manner  of  allusion  to  it  ? 

If  Slavery  was  not  legalized,  at  that  time,  how  has  it  be- 
come legal,  since? 

And  if  not  legal,  how  can  it  have  become  Constitutional? 
Can  it  be  Constitutional  while  it  is  illegal  ? 

The  Constitution  must  either  receive  a strict  literal  con- 
struction, or  else  it  must  be  construed  by  the  living  spirit  that 
pervades  the  instrument — its  main  design,  its  grand  leading 
object. 

If  construed  strictly  and  literally,  what  becomes  of  its 
“compromises7’  and  '‘guaranties?”  What  does  it  say  of 
“ slavery  ” — of  “ slaves  ” — or  of  “ property  in  man  ?”  What 
could  be  made,  even  of  the  clause  concerning  “ persons  held 
to  service  and  labor,”  from  whom  service  is  “ due  ?”  Is  there 
any  proper  description  of  a slave  in  this  clause  ? Can  an}" 
thing  be  “ due  ” from  one  who  cannot  even  make  a contract  ? 
The  laws  of  the  Slave  States  do  not  admit  that  a slave  is  “ a 
person.”  How  then  can  a “ person  held  to  service  and  labor” 
be  a slave  ? 


574 


THE  SLAVERY  QUESTION 


“Where  rights  are  infringed,  where  fundamental  principles  are  over- 
thrown, where  the  general  system  of  laws  is  departed  from,  the  legislative 
intention  must  be  expressed  with  irresistible  clearness  to  induce  a Court 
of  Justice  to  suppose  a design  to  effect  such  objects.” — Rule  of  Supreme 
Court  of  U.  S.,  case  United  States  vs.  Fisher  and  others.  2 Cranch , 390. 

The  “ intentions  of  the  framers”  (on  this  principle  of  strict 
construction)  is  to  be  gathered  only  by  their  words,  strictly 
construed.  Besides,  “ the  framers,”  as  they  are  called,  did  not 
make  the  Constitution.  They  only  proposed  it.  They  sat  with 
closed  doors,  and  the  people  knew  their  intentions  only  by 
their  wards.  It  was  the  people,  and  not  the  Convention , that 
formed  the  Constitution,  when  they  ratified  it.* 

If,  departing  from  this  “strict  construction,”  we  take  the 
spirit,  grand  design,  scope,  aim,  and  object,  of  the  Constitu- 
tion, then  we  are  driven  to  the  Preamble,  to  the  Declaration 
of  Independence,  and  to  the  literature  of  the  times,  the  writ- 
ings of  Jefferson,  the  doings  of  Franklin,  the  Ordinance  of 
1787,  &c.,  for  a rule  of  interpretation.  How  much  the  claims 
of  legal  and  Constitutional  Slavery  would  gain  by  this  pro- 
cess, the  reader  of  the  preceding  history  can  inquire  at  his 
leisure. 

The  Declaration  of  Independence,  by-tke-by,  has  never 
been  repealed.  It  was,  for  years,  the  only  Constitutional  law 
of  the  United  States,  and  it  is  no  less  Constitutional  law  now, 
than  formerly.  Can  there  be  either  legal  or  Constitutional 
Slavery  under  such  an  organic  law?  Were  the  Courts  in 
Massachusetts  mistaken,  when  they  decided  otherwise  ? 

“ The  first  act  of  our  nation  (the  Declaration  of  Independence)  being  a 
solemn  recognition  of  the  liberty  and  equality  of  all  men,  and  that  the 
rights  of  liberty  and  happiness  are  inalienable— was  the  corner-stone  of  our 
Confederacy,  and  is  above  all  Constitutions  and  all  laws.” — John  C. 
Spencer. 

“ The  United  States  shall  guaranty  to  every  State  in  the  Union  a repub- 
lican form  of  government.” — Constitution,  Art.  IV.,  Sect.  4. 

This  is  the  only  a guaranty  ” in  the  Constitution. 


* The  language  of  the  Constitution  shows  this— “We,  the  people  of  the  United 
States,”  “do  ordain,”  &c. 


I>T  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


575 


And  what  is  a republican  form  of  government  ? 

“ The  true  foundation  of  republican  government  is  the  equal  rights  of 
every  citizen  in  his  person  and  property,  and  in  their  management.’’ — 
Jefferson. 

Mr.  Jefferson  repeatedly  speaks  of  tbe  slaves  as  ‘'citizens.” 
— Vide  Notes  on  Virginia. 

“ No  State  shall  pass  any  bill  of  attainder,”  or  “ laws  impairing  the 
obligation  of  contracts,”  or  “ grant  any  title  of  nobility.”  The  citizens 
of  each  State  shall  be  entitled  to  all  the  privileges  and  immunities  of  citi- 
zens in  the  several  States.” 

How  can  Slavery  in  the  States  consist  with  all  these  prohi- 
bitions, describing  its  essential  arrangements  ? 

Does  Congress  possess  the  powers  requisite  to  enforce  all 
such  salutary  restrictions  upon  the  States  ? 

“ Congress  shall  have  power  to  make  all  laws  which  shall  be  necessary 
and  proper  for  carrying  into  execution  the  foregoing  powers,  and  all  other 
powers  vested  by  this  Constitution  in  the  government  of  the  United  States, 
or  in  any  department  or  officer  thereof.” — Art.  1,  Sec.  8,  Clause  17. 

This  Constitution,  and  the  laws  of  the  United  States  which  shall  be 
made  in  pursuance  thereof,  and  all  treaties  made,  or  which  shall  be  made, 
under  authority  of  the  United  States,  shall  be  the  supreme  law  of  the 
land,  and  the  judges  in  every  State  shall  be  bound  thereby,  anything  in 
the  Constitution  or  laws  of  any  State  to  the  contrary  notwith- 
standing.”— Art.  VI.,  2. 

If  this  be  not  sufficient  to  make  tbe  Constitution,  as  origi- 
nally framed  and  adopted , an  Anti-slavery  document,  there  is 
an  amendment,  afterwards  added,  which  seems  sufficiently 
decisive.  Let  it  be  borne  in  mind  that  an  amendment  to  a 
Constitution,  like  a codicil  to  a will,  overrules,  controls,  and 
annuls  whatever  in  the  original  instrument  is  inconsistent 
with  it. 

“ No  person  shall  be  deprived  of  life,  liberty,  or  property,  without  due 
process  of  law.” — Amendments  V. 


“ Due  process  of  law”  includes  an  indictment,  trial  by  jury, 


576 


THE  SLAVERY  QUESTION 


and  judgment  rendered  in  open  court.*  What  slave  has  ever 
been  “ deprived  of  liberty  ” in  this  manner  ? 

Admitting  that  the  original  Constitution  contained  all  the 
“compromises  and  guaranties  ” ever  attributed  to  it,  does  not 
this  amendment  sweep  them  all  away  by  prohibiting  Slavery  ? 

Slaves  are  either  citizens  of  the  United  States  or  they  are 
aliens.  If  citizens,  they  are  entitled  to  the  rights  and  privi- 
leges of  citizens,  and  these  are  incompatible  with  slavery.  But 
if  they  are  aliens,  then  Congress,  under  the  Constitution,  has 
the  power,  by  naturalization,  to  make  them  citizens  of  the 
United  States. 

“ Congress  shall  have  power  to  establish  a uniform  system  of  naturaliza- 
tion.”— Constitution,  Art.  I.  Sec.  3,  Clause  4. 

If  the  States  may  reduce  to  slavery  the  citizens  of  the  Uni- 


* Judge  Stoey,  in  his  Commentaries  upon  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States, 
speaking  of  this  provision  of  the  instrument,  says  : 

“ The  other  part  of  the  clause  is  but  an  enlargement  of  the  language  of  Magna 
Charta,  ‘ nec  super  eum  ibimus,  nec  super  eum  mittimus,  nisi  per  legale  judicium  parv- 
um  suorvm  vel  per  legem  terras' — neither  will  we  pass  upon  him  or  condemn  him,  but  by 
the  lawful  judgment  of  his  peers,  or  by  the  law  of  the  land.  Lord  Coke  says  that  the 
latter  words,  '•per  legem  terras ,’  (by  the  law  of  the  land,)  mean  ‘ by  due  process  of 
law,’  that  is,  due  presentment  or  indictment , and  being  brought  in,  to  answer  thereto 
by  ‘ due  process  of  law.’  So  that  this  clause,  in  effect,  affirms  the  eight  of  trial, 
according  to  process  and  proceedings  of  Common  law.” 

It  has,  however,  been  alleged  that  “Due  process  of  law  is  process  sanctioned  by 
law;  as  when  a juror  is  fined  by  the  Court  for  non-attendance,  a spectator  impris- 
oned for  contempt,  land  and  money  taken  by  tax-gatherers  and  assessors,  and  a 
soldier  shot  by  order  of  a court  martial." 

It  may  be  answered  that  customs  and  usages  do  not  define  or  create  law,  but 
should  be  controlled  by  it.  Convenience,  in  small  matters,  or  where  gross  injustice 
is  seldom  perpetrated,  may  tolerate  customs  not  strictly  legal.  More  than  this  : 
Gross  outrages,  in  open  defiance  of  Magna  Charta  and  Common  law,  have  been  con- 
tinued through  entire  generations.  Thus,  in  England,  the  practice  of  home  impress- 
ment of  merchant  seamen  for  the  Royal  Navy— is  an  admitted  violation  of  English 
law.  Martial  law  supersedes  Civil  law,  and  hence  the  latter  cannot  be  defined  by 
the  former.  The  Turkish  Sultan’s  order  to  behead  any  subject  in  his  dominions  may 
be  “ sanctioned  by  law,”  and  the  same  Congress  and  President  that  enacted  the 
Fugitive  Slave  bill  might  have  conferred  upon  the  President  the  prerogatives  of  the 
Turkish  Sultan,  with  as  much  reason,  or  equal  legality.  The  people  insisted  upon 
this  provision  in  “ Amendment  V.”  for  the  purpose  of  securing  themselves  against 
such  aggressions.  But  the  precaution  would  avail  them  nothing,  if  the  inhibition  is 
to  be  construed  in  conformity  with  usages , instead  of  bringing  usages  to  the  test  of 
inhibitions.  If  this  Amendment  cannot  protect  us  from  slavery,  what  can  it  protect 
us  from  ? Or,  of  what  use  is  it? 


IN'  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


577 


ted  States,  then  they  may  abolish  the  Federal  Government,  by 
depriving  it  of  citizens.  If  a State  may  reduce  one  man,  un- 
der its  jurisdiction,  to  slavery,  it  may  reduce  all  men,  under 
its  jurisdiction,  to  slavery,  and  thus  nullify  the  Federal  Gov- 
ernment, so  far  as  the  State  is  concerned. 

The  organization  of  the  Militia,  of  the  Postoffice,  and  Mail, 
and  Custom-house  establishments,  pertain,  under  the  Constitu- 
tion, to  the  Federal  Government,  in  its  various  departments. 
In  these,  as  in  all  other  Federal  appointments,  no  restriction 
is  imposed,  as  to  the  persons  to  he  organized,  appointed,  or  em- 
ployed. If  the  States,  by  their  legislation,  (or  if  the  citizens  of 
the  States,  sustained  by  State  authority,)  may  designate  the  per- 
sons whom  the  Federal  Government  may  not  organize  as  mili- 
tia, nor  employ  in  the  Custom-house,  Postoffice,  and  Mail 
establishments,  or  appoint  to  other  offices,  then  the  States,  (or 
citizens  of  the  States)  may  cripple  if  not  abrogate  the  power  and 
action  of  the  National  Government,  in  all  these  departments ! 
If  they  may  withdraw  on  e-fourth  or  on  e-half  of  the  people  from 
their  allegiance  and  subjection  to  the  Federal  Government, 
and  from  their  liability  or  capacity  for  military  or  other  ser- 
vices under  it,  then  they  can  withdraw  three-fourths,  nine- 
tenths,  or  ninety-nine  one-hundredths,  in  the  same  manner,  and 
thus  overthrow  the  national  government*  in  those  States. 

Such  is  an  outline  of  the  theory  that  denies  the  “ com- 
promises and  guaranties  of  the  Constitution”  in  favor  of 
slavery. 

Those  who  hold  this  view,  believe  that  every  slave  in  the 
United  States  is  entitled  to  the  privileges  of  the  writ  of  habeas 
corpus , and  to  the  benefits  of  a judicial  decision  in  favor  of  his 
freedom.  And  they  believe  that  Congress  and  the  Federal 


* In  many  of  tlie  slave  States  the  militia  is  of  no  value  to  the  Federal  Govern- 
ment from  this  cause,  and  is  scarcely  sufficient  to  keep  the  slaves  in  subjection  in 
time  of  peace  ! Has  the  Federal  Government  no  remedy  for  this  ? John  Quincy 
Adams  declared  a truth  in  Congress  when  he  said  that  “ the  war  power  of  Congress5' 
was  adequate  to  the  abolition  of  slavery.  But  is  this  the  whole  of  the  truth?  If 
Congress  has  any  “war  power,”  may  it  not  put  the  country  in  a state  of  preparation 
for  defense  ? 


37 


578 


THE  SLAVERY  QUESTION 


Executive  are  bound  to  provide  a judiciary  that  will  discharge 
its  duty,  and  to  protect,  (if  need  be)  the  Courts,  in  the  efficient 
exercise  of  their  functions. 


COMPARISON  OF  THESE  THREE  THEORIES. 

The  first  of  these  three  theories  of  the  Constitution  seems  to 
present  the  friends  of  freedom  with  no  alternatives  but  sub- 
jection or  revolution. 

It  is  too  late  in  the  day  to  dream  of  liberty  for  a portion  of 
a people,  while  another  portion  of  them  are  enslaved. 

Whatever  may  be  said  of  “ moral  suasion,”  it  cannot  be 
expected  that  slavery  will  soon  cease  in  this  country,  b}r  vol- 
untary emancipation,  on  the  part  of  all  the  slaveholders,  or  by 
the  great  body  of  them,  while  they  are  upheld  by  the  action 
of  legislative  and  judicial  authorities. 

Nor  can  it  be  thought  probable  that  the  authorities  of  the 
Slave  States  will  voluntarily  change  their  position,  in  advance 
of  their  constituents,  or  while  the  Federal  Government  main- 
tains (as  at  present)  a position  very  nearly  in  accordance  with 
the  constitutional  exposition  now  under  review. 

It  is  equally  evident  that  the  friends  of  liberty,  so  far  as 
they  shall  receive  this  exposition  of  the  Constitution  as  the 
correct  one,  can  have  no  hope  of  any  political  remedy  short 
of  disunion  or  revolution. 

Nor  does  it  seem  clear  that  a dissolution  of  the  Union  be- 
tween the  free  and  slave  states,  without  such  a general  revolu- 
tion as  should  render  disunion  unnecessary,  would  do  anything, 
directly,  for  the  cause  of  freedom,  further  than  to  relieve  the 
people  of  the  North,  and  detach  them  from  the  support  of  the 
foul  system.  In  such  a case  there  would  indeed  be  a still 
more  appalling  prospect  than  there  now  is,  of  that  terrible 
remedy,  at  which  humanity  herself  shudders,  unless,  by  timely 
repentance,  the  South  should  avert  the  catastrophe.  Yet  the 
principle  of  self-preservation,  not  less  than  the  duty  of  clear- 
ing their  own  skirts  from  the  guilt  of  oppression,  should  impel 
all  who  fear  God  and  love  liberty,  to  choose,  in  sadness,  the 


IN'  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


579 


only  alternative  presented  to  them.  To  remain  voluntarily  in 
the  Union  under  a Constitution  that  must  be  thus  construed, 
would  be  suicidal  to  ourselves,  as  well  as  treason  against  man- 
kind, and  rebellion  against  God.  Common  prudence,  to  say 
nothing  of  principle  or  of  piety,  should  suffice  to  direct,  in  so 
clear  a case,  a people  not  judicially  blinded.  The  “patriot- 
ism” and  the  “chivalry”  the  “ honor”  and  the  “ magnanimity,” 
the  “ sagacity”  and  the  “ prudence,”  -that  could  deliberately 
plant  themselves  against  every  “ attribute  of  the  Almighty” 
and  every  instinct  of  human  nature,  in  opposition  to  every 
principle  of  law,  and  every  element  of  social  order — and  all 
this  under  the  hallucination  or  the  pretext  of  being  “ orderly 
and  law  abiding'1'' — invite  epithets  which  we  are  unwilling 
to  use. 

The  Second  Theory — that  of  “the  Compromises,”  may  appear 
less  appalling,  at  the  first  view,  but  it  deserves  serious  inquiry, 
whether  this  be  anything  more  than  mere  appearance. 

An  attempted  “ compromise”  between  moral  right  and  mo- 
ral wrong,  results  always  in  the  ascendency  of  the  wrong,  and 
the  overthrow  of  the  right.  In  matters  of  civil  government, 
in  politics,  in  legislation,  in  j urisprudence,  this  is  as  certain  as 
everywhere  else.  . The  history  of  the  Slavery  Question  in 
America  furnishes  lamentable  illustrations  in  point. 

The  friends  of  liberty,  adhering  to  the  Constitution,  yet  ad- 
mitting its  “compromises” and  promising  to  fulfil  them,  admit 
themselves  to  be  compromising  with  moral  wrong ! What, 
then,  becomes  of  their  moral  power  ? If  anything  deserving 
the  name  of  success,  is  to  come  from  the  pursuit  of  this  policy, 
the  historical  verification  of  it  is  yet  future.  The  annals  of 
the  world,  thus  far,  have  not  supplied  it.  The  good  Provi- 
dence of  God,  in  spite  of  their  moral  obliquities  and  compro- 
mises, may  have  delivered  an  oppressed  people.  But  their 
compromises  have  never  deserved  the  credit  of  it,  any  more 
than  the  idolatries  of  the  Hebrews  deserved  the  credit  (as  they 
stupidly  fancied,)  of  having  supplied  them  with  bread.* 


* Jeremiah  14 : 17. 


580 


THE  SLAVERY  QUESTION 


If  the  “ Compromises  of  the  Constitution”  include — as  they 
are  commonly  understood  to  do — the  “ guaranty”  of  the  right 
(under  any  restrictions)  to  reclaim  fugitives,  and  the  “guaran- 
ty” of  northern  assistance  in  suppressing  a servile  insurrec- 
tion, then  the  construction  that  concedes  these  compromises, 
concedes  the  most  atrocious  as  well  as  the  most  effective 
supports  of  slavery  included  in  that  ultra  southern  construc- 
tion which  the  masses  at  the  North  so  indignantly  repudi- 
ate ! Conceding  these,  very  little  more  would  he  lost,  in  a 
moral  view,  by  conceding  the  whole. 

And  the  extent  of  the  moral  concession  is  the  measure  of 
the  political.  An  effort  in  Congress,  or  at  the  ballot  box, 
against  slavery,  conceding  the  sacredness  of  the  “ compro- 
mises” with  the  “guaranties”  involved  in  them,  is  an  effort 
for  victory  after  having  relinquished  the  main  controversy  in 
debate.  Such  efforts  must  be  abortive  of  course.  By  the 
operation  of  well  known  laws  of  human  nature,  they  generally 
fail  of  reaching  the  low  point  at  which  they  are  aimed.  And 
if  reached,  only  an  unsightly  limb  is  displaced,  leaving  the 
root  untouched  and  the  trunk  less  offensive  and,  perhaps,  the 
more  thrifty  and  vigorous  for  the  pruning. 

That  local  and  partial  victories  may  sometimes  be  gained 
by  this  policy  is  not  denied.  But  a wise  general  knows  that 
a local  victory  may  be  purchased  too  dearly.  A political 
victory  is  always  purchased  too  dearly,  when  it  is  done  by  a 
moral  compromise,  or  when  the  victor,  by  his  compromises, 
concessions,  and  pledges,  ties  up  his  own  hands,  and  fore- 
closes himself  from  doing  his  main  work. 

If  it  be  true  that  the  Constitution  does  contain  the  “ com- 
promises and  the  guaranties  ” commonly  attributed  to  it,  even 
at  the  North,  then  the  main  battle  between  slavery  and  free- 
dom cannot  be  fought  under  it,  nor  otherwise  than  by  a re- 
pudiation of  it,  or  the  proposal  of  such  amendments  as  would 
be  regarded  as  revolutionary  to  insist  upon.  And  however 
wise  it  might  be  for  the  friends  of  liberty  to  avail  themselves 
of  any  advantages  thrown  in  their  way,  to  weaken  or  cripple 
the  slave  power,  (taking  care  to  avoid  giving  sanction  to  any 


IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


581 


constitutional  compromises)  it  would  be  evidently  impolitic 
for  them  to  expend  their  main  strength  and  wear  out  their 
energies  and  dishearten  their  successors  in  labors  which,  if 
never  so  successful,  would  leave  their  main  work  unaccom- 
plished and  even  unattempted,  after  all.  The  longer  the 
friends  of  liberty  busy  themselves  in  this  manner,  the  more 
firmly  will  they  establish  the  precedents  which,  sooner  or 
later,  must  be  rebelled  against  and  spurned. 

If  the  Constitution  be  a “compromise”  between  slavery 
and  freedom,  then  those  who  adhere  to  it,  giving  their  assent 
to  the  compromise,  yet  expecting  to  “secure  the  blessings  of 
liberty”  under  it  for  “themselves  and  their  posterity,”  are 
only  acting  over  again  the  folly  of  their  fathers,  but  with  less 
excuse,  after  having  witnessed  the  experiment  of  the  last  sixty 
years.  The  fruits  borne  by  the  tree  of  “ compromise  ” thus 
far,  should  warn  us  to  expect  nothing  better  of  it  in  future. 

Of  the  third  theory  of  the  Constitution,  that  which  repu- 
diates all  its  supposed  “compromises”  and  “guaranties,”  it  is 
sufficient  to  say  that,  if  it  he  correct , it  is  all  that  could  be  de- 
sired as  a basis  of  political  action.  In  the  words  of  another, 

“ Those  who  believe  that  slavery  is  unconstitutional,  are  the  only  persons 
who  propose  to  abolish  it.  They  are  the  only  ones  who  claim  to  have  the 
power  to  abolish  it.  Were  the  whole  North  to  become  abolitionists,  they 
would  still  be  unable  to  touch  the  chain  of  a single  slave  so  long  as  they 
should  concede  that  slavery  is  constitutional. 

“ The  mass  of  men  will  insist  on  seeing  that  a thing  can  be  done,  before 
they  will  leave  the  care  of  other  interests  to  assist  in  doing  it.  Hence  the 
slow  progress  of  all  political  movements  based  on  the  admission  that  slavery 
is  constitutional.” — Spooner. 

These  considerations  should  not  tempt  us  to  put  an  unwar- 
rantable construction  upon  our  great  national  document.  But 
they  should  induce  a candid  and  thorough  investigation  of 
the  matter,  with  a determination  to  take  the  position  de- 
manded by  a discovery  of  the  truth  of  the  case.  If  the  or- 
ganic structure  of  our  National  Government  does  indeed  cast 
us  at  the  feet  of  the  Slave  Power,  bound  hand  and  foot,  let 
us  know  the  worst  of  the  case,  and  in  view  of  it,  determine 


582 


THE  SLAVERY  QUESTION 


whether  we  have  strength  and  resolution  to  cut  the  cords,  or 
whether  we  will  submit  to  be  slaves,  with  our  posterity,  for- 
ever. But  if  we  have  in  our  hands  the  Charter  of  Freedom, 
let  us  understand  its  use,  and  the  responsibilities  with  which 
it  invests  us. 


IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


583 


CHAPTER  L. 

THE  SLAVERY  QUESTION  IN  AMERICA  AND  THE  CRISIS. — WHAT 
SHALL  BE  DONE? 

Effects  of  Compromise  thus  far — Shall  it  be  repeated  or  continued  ? — The  Slavery 
question,  as  it  now  stands,  stated — Must  be  settled  by  the  Church  and  in  the 
State — A question  for  the  people — Can  the  Church  and  the  State  be  reformed, 
and  wielded  against  Slavery? — -Questions  behind  these — What  is  the  organic 
structure  of  the  Church  and  the  State? — Eallacy  of  the  idea  that  the  Federal 
Government  can  occupy  a neutral  position,  divorced  from  the  support  of  Slavery, 
yet  not  wielded  effectively  against  it — Fallacy  of  the  idea  that  the  peculiar  struc- 
ture of  our  Government  relieves  us  from  responsibility  in  respect  to  Slavery — 
Suggestions  concerning  what  might  be  done.  The  Church — Can  the  politics  of  a 
people,  or  of  reformers,  rise  above  the  level  of  their  religion  ? — Responsibility  of 
the  Church  and  its  constituent  members. 

The  reader  of  the  preceding  pages  will,  by  this  time,  com- 
prehend something  of  the  magnitude  of  the  pending  slave 
question  in  America.  Though,  primarily  a question  concern- 
ing the  liberation  of  the  enslaved,  there  is  involved  in  it  the 
question  of  the  civil  and  political  liberties  of  the  nominally 
free.  And  the  crisis  seems  to  have  arrived,  predicted  by  one 
of  our  prominent  statesmen,  at  the  time  our  present  Federal 
Government  was  organized. 

“ I have  no  hope  that  the  stream  of  general  liberty  will  forever  flow  un- 
polluted through  the  mire  of  partial  bondage,  or  that  they  who  have  been 
habituated  to  lord  it  over  others,  will  not,  in  time,  become  base  enough  to 
let  others  lord  it  over  them.  If  they  resist,  it  will  be  the  struggle  of  pride 
and  selfishness,  not  of  principle.” — Wm.  Pinckney's  Speech  in  the  House  of 
Delegates  of  Maryland , 1789. 

The  Forth  has  submitted  to  compromise  on  this  subject  till 
one  of  her  own  Senators  taunts  her  with  infidelity  to  her  con- 
stitutional engagements,  if  she  insists  upon  any  legal  securities 


584 


THE  SLAVERY  QUESTION 


for  the  personal  liberties  of  her  own  citizens,  the  Senator  him- 
self not  excepted  ;*  and  he  exhorts  her  to  conquer  her  “ pre- 
judices” in  favor  of  liberty,  for  the  sake  of  preserving  “ the 
Union  /” 

The  Slavery  Question  in  America  is  the  question  whether 
liberty  shall  be  relinquished,  for  the  security  of  slavery,  or 
whether  slavery  shall  be  overthrown  by  the  spirit  of  liberty. 
It  is  the  question  whether  civil  government  shall  secure  and 
protect  human  rights,  or  whether  a ruthless  despotism,  dis- 
placing civil  government,  (properly  so  called,)  shall  be  wdelded 
by  the  Slave  Power  for  the  subjugation  of  freemen.  It  is  the 
question  whether  the  Federal  Government  shall  be  thus 
wielded  by  a petty  oligarchy  of  one  or  two  hundred  thousand 
slaveholders,  over  twenty  millions  of  people,  (one  person  con- 
trolling one  hundred,)  or  whether  it  shall  be  a republican 
government,  amenable  to  all,  and  administered  for  the  pro- 
tection of  all. 

It  is,  moreover,  the  question  whether  Christianity  in  Ame- 
rica shall  overthrow  heathenism  in  America,  or  be  corrupted 
or  exterminated  by  it.  It  is  the  question  whether  the  Bible, 
the  Church,  and  the  ministry,  shall  suffer  the  disgrace  of 
being  accounted  the  handmaids  of  oppression,  or  whether  they 
shall  be  hailed  as  the  deliverers  of  the  captives,  proclaiming 
the  Jubilee  of  the  Lord. 

This  great  question  is  to  be  decided,  mainly,  by  the  concur- 
rent action  of  the  two  great  social  institutions  of  the  country, 
the  Church,  and  the  State,  the  ecclesiastical  and  the  civil 
power. 

It  is  for  THE  PEOPLE  of  the  non-slaveholding  States  to 
say  whether  these  two  social  institutions  shall  be  redeemed 
from  the  foul  embraces  of  slavery,  and  wielded  for  their  hea- 
ven-appointed ends,  or  whether  they  shall  remain,  as  at  pre- 
sent, in  the  hands  of  their  enemies. 

And  the  question  whether  THE  PEOPLE  will  ever  effect 


* If  Daniel  Webster  were  seized  as  a slave,  Ire  could  have  no  legal  redress  under 
the  Fugitive  Slave  bill,  to  which  he  urges  our  submission. 


IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


585 


the  requisite  reformation  in  the  Church  and  the  State  will 
depend,  very  much,  on  the  ideas  they  attach  to  the  organic 
structure  of  the  Church  and  the  State,  and  of  their  own  parti- 
eipancy  in  the  administration  of  their  powers. 

If  the  Christians  of  the  Free  States  conceive  of  the  Church 
as  a mysterious  something  in  the  hands  of  the  priesthood, 
above  the  control  of  the  brotherhood,  to  which  they  are  reli- 
giously bound  to  adhere,  right  or  wrong,  and  go  wherever  it 
carries  them,  it  is  evident  that  there  will  be  no  reformation  in 
the  Church. 

If  the  voting  citizens  of  the  Free  States  conceive  of  “ the 
Government  ” as  something  distinct  from  themselves,  and  to 
which  their  allegiance  is  unchangeably  due, — if  they  conceive 
of  the  “ Constitution  ” as  pledged  to  “ compromises  and  guar- 
anties ” in  fav-or  of  slavery,  and  yet  hold  themselves  bound  to 
fulfil  those  unrighteous  compromises  and  guaranties,  thus 
elevating  the  Constitution  (though  conceded  to  be  criminal) 
; above  all  that  is  called  God  or  is  worshiped  ’ — it  is  evident 
that  there  will  be  no  reformation  in  the  State. 

And  if  there  is  to  be  no  reformation  in  the  Church  or  the 
State,  it  is  evident  that  the  sun  of  American  liberty  must  go 
down  in  darkness,  or  be  subjected  to  a baptism  in  blood. 

The  questions  arise — “ What  shall  be  done  ?”  And  “ IIow 
shall  it  be  done  ?” 

The  field  may  be  narrowed,  by  first  inquiring,  in  the  light 
of  the  past,  and  on  the  stand-point  of  the  present,  what  ought 
not  to  be  done  ? 

May  we  not  clearly  detect  some  of  the  main  fallacies  by 
which  the  friends  of  liberty  have  been  misled,  and  by  which 
they  have  been  foiled  ? 

Expedients — compromises — gradualisms — postponements— 
ameliorations — have  not  the  friends  of  liberty  been  baffled 
sufficiently  by  confiding  implicitly  in  these  ? 

Attempts  to  overthrow  slavery  merely  by  localizing  it — 
preventing  its  expansion — prohibiting  the  slave  trade,  or  the 
transportation  of  slaves — excluding  slavery  from  new  territo- 
ries—Is  it  not  time  to  understand  that  the  work  of  abolishing 


586 


THE  SLAVERY  QUESTION 


slavery  is  not  to  be  accomplished  by  directing  attention  and 
effort  chiefly  to  enterprises  of  this  character? 

Every  opportunity  should,  doubtless,  be  improved,  to  do, 
in  the  use  of  proper  measures,  whatever  presents  itself  to  be 
done  in  these  directions.  But  is  it  wise,  as  a matter  of  policy 
— can  it  be  right,  as  a question  of  morals,  to  postpone  or  com- 
promise the  mam  question  of  abolishing  slavery , in  order  to 
concentrate  strength  or  enlist  numbers,  on  points  of  secondary 
importance  ? May  we  consent  to  one  crime  for  the  sake  of 
repressing  another  ? Especially  where  the  greater  is  indulged 
that  the  smaller  may  be  abolished  ? May  we — or  may  civil 
government — consent  to  regulate  and  thus  authorize  crime, 
for  the  purpose  of  curtailing  its  mischiefs  ? 

Is  there  not  a fallacy  in  the  idea  that  the  Federal  Govern- 
ment can  be  divorced  from  the  support  of  slavery  without 
being  enlisted  against  it,  and  so  enlisted  as  to  treat  it  as  illegal 
and  criminal  ? 

How  shall  the  Federal  Government  be  thus  divorced  with- 
out so  exerting  itself  as  to  overthrow  slavery  ? 

In  organizing  the  militia,  in  providing  for  the  collection  of 
the  revenue,  (whether  through  the  Custom-house  or  by  direct 
taxation,)  in  providing  for  the  transportation  of  the  mails,  in 
appointing  Post-masters  and  all  other  officers  of  Government, 
in  making  enlistments  for  the  army  and  navy,  in  naturalizing 
or  in  refusing  to  naturalize  all  classes  of  aliens — in  making  or 
refusing  to  make  compensation  to  slaveholders  for  losses  of 
slaves  in  the  public  service — must  not  the  Federal  Govern- 
ment take  sides,  one  way  or  the  other,  on  the  question  of  the 
legality  of  slavery,  and  of  the  right  of  the  slaves  to  their  free- 
dom ? And  is  not  the  practical  decision  of  the  Federal  Gov- 
ernment, in  either  case,  entirely  conclusive  of  the  whole 
matter?  Could  the  condition  of  slavery  be  continued,  if  the 
practice  of  the  Federal  Government  did  not  acknowledge  its 
legality?  And  while  acknowledging  its  legality,  can  it  be 
said  to  be  divorced  from  the  support  of  slavery  ? Can  it  be 
neutral  on  that  question,  taking  neither  the  one  side  or  the 


IN  THE  UNITED  STATES.  587 

other  ? Or,  (however  constituted,)  has  it  any  moral  right  to 
be  neutral,  were  it  possible  to  be  so  ? 

Can  the  United  States  “guaranty  to  every  State  in  this 
Union  a republican  form  of  Government”  without  abolishing 
Slavery  ? Or  can  they  neglect  doing  this  without  sustaining 
and  being  responsible  for  Slavery  ? 

Is  there  not  a fallacy  in  the  common  assumption  (admitted 
by  some  of  the  friends  of  liberty)  that  the  peculiar  structure 
of  our  Federal  Government,  with  its  delegated  powers,  its 
limitations,  and  the  reserved  rights  of  the  States,  relieves  the 
Government  and  the  people  of  the  free  States  from  their 
responsibilities  in  respect  to  slavery  in  the  slave  States , provided 
the  Federal  Government  prohibits  it  elsewhere? 

Can  man  by  his  skill,  or  by  his  want  of  skill,  in  the  con 
struction  of  a Constitution  of  Government,  relieve  that  Gov- 
ernment of  the  essential  duties  devolving  upon  all  civil 
Governments,  in  the  nature  of  things,  in  the  nature  of  civil 
Government  itself,  and  by  the  express  appointment  of  God  ? 

Can  there  be  a civil  Government  not  invested  with  the  pre- 
rogative, and  charged  with  the  duty,  of  protecting  human 
rights,  and  “ executing  justice  between  a man  and  his  neigh- 
bor?” If  the  Bible  or  the  Declaration  of  Independence  be 
resorted  to  for  an  answer,  will  they  not  unitedly  respond,  No  ? 
Is  there  any  intelligible  theory  of  civil  Government  that  will 
not  require  at  its  hands  thus  much  ? Does  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States,  in  its  Preamble,  profess  less ? Can  it 
claim  the  allegiance,  or  deserve  the  confidence  of  the  people, 
if  it  performs  less  ? Have  the  Sovereign  People,  who  are 
responsible  for  the  organic  structure  as  well  as  for  the  admin- 
istration of  their  Government,  any  moral  right  to  construct 
and  continue  an  arrangement  which  contemplates  less  ? Or 
can  their  liberties  be  secure  under  such  an  arrangement  ? 

The  Federal  Constitution  either  describes  a civil  Govern- 
ment or  it  does  not.*  If  it  does,  then  that  Government  is 


* The  great  problem  of  1787,  was  the  formation  of  a National  Government  that 
ohould  supersede  the  “ Confederation ,”  and  yet  leave  the  State  Governments  in 


588 


THE  SLAVERY  QUESTION 


charged  with  the  essential  duties  of  a civil  Government.  If  it 
does  not  describe  a civil  Government,  then  we  are  without  any 
National  Government.  We  are  reduced  to  a mere  confed- 
eracy of  the  States.  And  if  we  have  only  a confederacy  of 
States,  may  it  not  be’ dissolved  at  the  option  of  either  of  the 
parties  ? And  are  not  the  free  States  doubly  inexcusable  for 
remaining  perpetually  in  a confederacy  that  binds  them  to 
restore  fugitives  and  assist  in  suppressing  an  insurrection  of 
slaves?* 

The  questions  again  recur — What  shall  be  done?  And 
how  shall  it  be  done? 

Without  presuming  to  dogmatize,  may  we  adventure  a few 
farther  suggestions? 

The  powers  of  the  Federal  Government — the  legality  or 
the  illegality  of  slavery — its  agreement  or  disagreement  with 
the  Constitution — present,  evidently,  questions  of  the  first 
magnitude,  and  of  vital  importance  in  disposing  of  the  pro- 
blem— -“What  shall  be  done?” 

Would  it  not  be  the  part  of  wisdom,  in  the  friends  of  lib- 
erty, in  the  first  place,  to  examine  thoroughly,  and  settle 
definitely,  those  questions?  Can  there  be  efficient  and  united 
political  action  against  slavery  till  these  questions  are  settled  ? 

If  it' be  found  that  slavery  is  illegal,  that  it  is  unconstitu- 
tional, that  the  Federal  Government  has  full  power  over  it, 
the  course  of  action  becomes  plain.  The  Federal  Courts,  sus- 


existenee.  After  great  labor,  the  paradox  -was  supposed  to  have  been  solved.  It 
remains  to  be  seen  whether  the  exultation  was  not  premature.  The  common  theory, 
according  to  one  of  its  ablest  advocates,  concedes  that  “ the  Federal  Government 
is  not  a complete  civil  Government” — but  nevertheless  adds:  “ It  does  not  follow, 
and  it  is  not  true,  that  we  have  no  National  Government.” 

The  concession  then  is,  that  we  have  only,  in  part , a National  Government ; — an 
incomplete  Government.  And  the  precise  point  in  respect  to  which  its  incom- 
pleteness is  conceded,  is  the  point  in  which  it  fails  “ to  secure  the  blessings  of  lib- 
erty” for  “ the  people  of  the  United  States” — and  some  other  little  things  of  that 
character.  A somewhat  significant  incompleteness — like  the  performance  of  “ the 
Drama  of  Hamlet,  with  the  part  of  Hamlet  left  out,  by  particular  request.” 

*- United  States’ forces  were  used  to  suppress  the  Southampton  insurrection  of 
negroes  in  1831.  And,  more  recently,  they  were  employed  to  capture  a company  of 
Maryland  slaves  who  were  marching  off  in  pursuit  of  freedom.  And  every  execu- 
tion of  the  Fugitive  Slave  bill  is  of  the  same  character 


IK  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


589 


tained  by  Congress  and  the  Executive,  are  adequate  to  admin- 
ister the  remedy.  And  the  power  is  in  the  hands  of  the  non- 
slaveholding States. 

The  investigation  itself  might  be  carried  on,  to  a great 
extent,  by  bringing  questions,  involving  the  rights  of  slaves 
and  others,  for  decision  before  the  Federal  Courts,  after  the 
example,  and  with  the  untiring  perseverance  of  Granville 
Sharp. 

If  it  comes  to  be  conceded,  after'  a fair  investigation,  that 
the  Constitution  is  in  favor  of  slavery,  and  that  it  provides  no 
remedy  against  it,  the  question  returns  again — “What  shall 
be  done  ?” 

An  amendment  of  the  Constitution  might  be  proposed,  but 
it  requires  the  concurrence  of  two-thirds  of  the  States  to  carry 
it  into  effect.  There  seems  little  prospect  of  a remedy  in  that 
direction. 

Revolution  or  disunion  appear  to  be  the  only  direct  political 
remedies  that  remain.  We  may  conceive  of  a revolution  that 
should  carry  with  it,  or  bring  after  it,  the  abolition  of  slavery. 
The  ground  of  disunion  would  then  be  removed.  But  the 
mind  shudders  at  the  thought  of  a revolution  by  violence. 

Might  there  not  be  effected  a peaceful  separation  between 
the  slaveholding  and  non-slaveholding  States?  If  a majority7 
of  the  citizens  at  the  North  and  at  the  South  should  concur, 
why  could  it  not  be  done?  If  the  Constitution  makes  no 
provision  for  such  an  emergency,  does  it  follow  that  an  Ad- 
ministration is  bound  to  enforce  union  by  the  sword  ? Or 
why  might  not  a vote  of  two-thirds  of  the  States  (Northern 
and  Southern)  unite  in  an  amendment  of  the  Constitution  for 
that  end  ? 

The  Union  has  its  value,  but  is  it  anything  more  than  that 
of  a means  to  an  end?  And  what  is  that  end  worth,  if  it 
does  not  include  justice,  security,  freedom,  and  the  right  to 
obey  God  ? 

What  other  alternative  remains  but  the  loss  of  the  main 
objects  for  which  the  independence  of  the  country  was 
achieved,  and  the  Constitution  and  the  Union  established  ? 


590 


THE  SLAVERY  QUESTION 


Is  anything  to  be  gained  by  clinging  to  that  which  was  de- 
signed to  be  the  means , if,  in  doing  it,  we  must  sacrifice  the 
end  ? 

The  general  and  public  discussion  of  these  questions  would 
arrest  the  attention  of  all  classes  of  citizens,  Northern  and 
Southern.  If  any  other  alternatives  exist,  they  would  be 
discovered  and  presented.  If  the  South  loved  slavery  more 
than  the  Union,  she  would  say  so.  If  the  North  loved  the 
Union  more  than  liberty,  she  would  say  so.  The  issue  would 
be  presented  to  every  citizen,  and  it  would  have  to  be  met  at 
the  ballot-box  and  decided.  If  the  friends  of  liberty  at  the 
North  were  left  in  the  minority,  and  the  country  ruined  under 
the  avenging  hand  of  divine  justice,  they  would  then  be  clear 
of  the  blame.  But  would  the  impartial  award  of  posterity 
acquit  them,  if,  adhering  to  a Constitution  of  “compromises 
and  guaranties”  in  favor  of  slavery,  they  bartered  their  prin- 
ciples, their  consciences,  and  the  liberties  of  their  country,  for 
an  idolized  “union”  with  oppressors?  "Would  it  acquit  the 
entire  generation  of  northern  citizens  who,  in  full  view  of  the 
crisis,  should  consign  themselves  and  their  posterity  to  the 
degradation  of  vassalage?  Would  not  their  own  Declaration 
of  self-evident  truths,  and  of  the  rights  and  responsibilities 
of  freemen,  upbraid  them  ? 

“ We  hold  these  truths  to  be  self-evident,  that  all  men  are  created  equal , 
that  they  are  endowed  by  their  Creator  with  certain  inalienable  rights,  among 
which  are  life,  liberty,  and  the  pursuit  of  happiness.  That,  to  secure 

THESE  RIGHTS,  GOVERNMENTS  ARE  INSTITUTED  AMONG  MEN,  deriving  their 
just  powers  from  the  consent  of  the  governed  ; that  whenever  any  form 
of  Government  becomes  destructive  of  these  ends,  it  is  the  RIGHT 
OF  THE  PEOPLE  to  alter  or  abolish  it,  and  to  institute  a new  Gov- 
ernment, laying  its  foundation  on  such  principles,  and  organizing  its  powers 
in  such  form,  as  to  them  shall  seem  most  likely  to  effect  their  safety  and 
happiness.” 

Whatever  sentiments  may  mould  the  answers  that  shall  be 
returned  to  these  questions,  the  issue  to  he  met  and  disposed  of 
will  remain,  if  we  mistake  not,  very  much  as  has  been  stated 
already.  That  is  to  say:  If  the  Constitution  contains  the 
“compromises  and  guaranties”  commonly  attributed  to  it; 


IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


591 


if  there  is  no  prospect  of  its  being  amended,  or  of  the  speedy 
abolition  of  slavery  by  the  States ; then  the  free  States  have 
no  remedy  but  revolution  or  disunion.  Bejecting  this,  they 
must  continue  to  participate  in  the  guilt  of  slavery,  and  to 
suffer  its  evils,  including  their  own  subjugation  by  the  petty 
oligarchy  of  slaveholders.  But  if  the  Constitution  contains 
no  such  “ compromises  and  guaranties,”  then  they  hold  the 
power  in  their  own  hands,  and  may  readily  redeem  themselves 
and  their  country  if  they  will,  by  the  proper  administration 
of  the  Government. 

This  view  presents  what  we  understand  to  be  the  Slavery 
Question  in  America , so  far  as  the  prospect  of  its  abolition  by 
the  action  of  civil  government  and  the  political  action  of  the 
bTorth  are  concerned. 

The  Church  question  is  still  more  comprehensive,  more 
vital,  and  more  solemn.  If  the  religion  of  a country  controls, 
of  necessity,  the  legislation  of  a country,  then  the  Church,  to 
the  full  extent  to  which  it  moulds  or  represents  the  religion 
of  a country,  or  is  able  to  mould  and  represent  it,  is  responsi- 
ble for  its  political  morality.  Is  it  not  so? 

Can  the  political  morality  of  a people  rise  higher  than  the 
religion  of  a people  ? Can  the  political  morality  of  reformers 
rise  higher  than  the  religion  of  reformers  ? Can  their  re- 
ligion rise,  permanently,  above  the  religion  of  the  Churches 
to  which  they  adhere,  and  of  the  ministry  in  whom  they  con- 
fide for  religious  instruction  ? Will  they  be  likely  to  demand 
of  their  political  parties,  or  to  secure  in  the  management  and 
direction  of  them  a higher  tone  of  morality  than  they  require 
of  their  Churches,  or  than  actually  prevails  in  them?  Does 
the  history  of  past  experiments  warrant  the  belief  that  it  can 
be  so  ? Or  would  it  be  honorable  to  religion  and  religious 
institutions,  to  believe  that  such  could  be  the  fact,  and  that 
the  world  should  be  the  teacher  and  exemplar  of  the  Church  ? 

The  friends  of  liberty  and  pure  religion,  to  a considerable 
extent,  have  been  impressed  with  the  importance  of  so  direct- 
ing their  missionary  efforts,  as  to  send  none  but  a pure  and 
liberty  loving  religion  to  the  heathen.  They  are  contributing 


592 


THE  SLAVERY  QUESTION 


their  missionary  benefactions  accordingly.  But,  are  they,  in 
all  cases,  sustaining  and  confiding  in  no  other  religion  at 
home  ? Are  they  supporting  by  their  contributions  and  b}^ 
their  approving  attendance,  no  teachers  of  religion  whom 
they  would  not  entrust  with  the  work  of  carrying  the  gospel 
to  the  heathen  ? Is  it  probable  that  they  will  consistently  and 
perseveringly  insist  on  exporting  a better  religion  for  the  ac- 
ceptance of  the  heathen  abroad,  than  that  which  they  cherish 
and  confide  in  for  their  own  edification  and  the  benefit  of 
their  families  at  home  ? Or,  will  it  be  practicable,  to  any  ex- 
tent, or  for  any  great  length  of  time,  to  find  missionaries  of 
liberty  to  send  abroad,  who  have  been  nurtured  in  the  bosom 
of  pro-slavery  churches  at  home, — churches  that  remain  in 
fellowship  with  oppressors,  that  cherish  the  arrangements  of 
caste,  that  set  up  in  the  sanctuary  of  prayer  the  negro  pew,  and 
that  welcome  to  their  communion,  without  remonstrance,  the 
politicians  whose  votes  rivet  the  fetters  of  the  slave  ? 

Or  is  it  to  be  believed  that  the  peaceful  abolition  of  slavery 
is  to  be  effected  by  the  labors  of  those  who  thus  contribute  to 
its  support  ? Can  the  consciences  of  the  slaveholders  be  thus 
reached  ? Can  Christian  missionaries  be  sustained  in  the 
slave  States  to  build  up  churches  there,  having  no  fellowship 
with  slavery  (for  this  is  one  department  of  our  “Free  Mis- 
sions”) by  Christians  at  the  North  who  remain  in  churches 
holding  fellowship  with  slavery,  and  who  support  its  apolo- 
gists as  religious  teachers  ? Are  the  Choctaw  and  Cherokee 
Churches  to  be  disowned  and  abandoned  for  retaining  slave- 
holders in  their  communion,  by  Christians  at  the  North  re- 
maining in  ecclesiastical  connection  with  the  slaveholders  of 
the  South,  or  holding  fraternal  ecclesiastical  correspondence 
with  them  ? Or,  retaining  religious  fellowship  with  the  cor- 
rupt and  servile  northern  demagogues  who  are  more  guilty^ 
than  the  slaveholders  themselves  ? Can  the  friends  of  liberty 
and  pure  religion  continue  long  to  remonstrate  with  churches 
in  fellowship  with  slavery,  while  their  own  position  is  such  as 
has  been  described  ? If  the  churches  have  any  responsibility 
in  respect  to  slavery,  is  there  no  inconsistency  in  the  position 


IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


593 


of  such  ? "What  is  the  responsibility  of  churches  aside  from 
the  responsibilities  of  the  members  of  which  the  Church  is 
composed  ? And  how  can  the  individual  member  urge  upon 
the  body  a position  which  he  is  not  ready  to  take  himself? 

“ There  is  no  power  out  of  the  Church,”  says  Albert  Barnes, 
“ that  could  sustain  slavery  an  hour,  if  it  were  not  sustained 
in  it.”  To  this  we  may  add  the  inquiry — How  long  would 
slavery  be  sustained  in  the  churches,  if  churches  sustaining 
slavery  were  not  sustained  by  those  who  complain  of  their 
position  ? If  a solemn  responsibility  rests  on  the  churches,  is 
it  not  shared  by  those  in  the  churches  whose  support  con- 
tributes to  sustain  them  ? 

There  is  still  another  view  of  the  subject.  Suppose  it  were 
not  true  that  the  position  of  the  Church  could  decide  the  fate 
of  American  slavery  ? Suppose  it  were  certain  that,  notwith- 
standing all  that  could  be  done  by  the  Church  and  ministry 
to  overthrow  slaver}’,  it  would  still  live  and  thrive?  Would 
the  responsibility  of  the  Church  and  ministry  then  cease? 
Would  it  not  still  be  their  duty  to  bear  their  testimony  in  the 
midst  of  a perverse  people  ? How  else  can  they  shine  as 
lights  in  the  world?  How  else  can  they  honor  their  God  and 
their  Savior  ? How  else  can  they  teach  and  exemplify  pure 
religion  ? How  else  can  they  call  sinners  to  repentance  ? 
How  else  can  they  preserve  a pure  seed  to  survive  the  terri- 
ble overthrow  of  the  nation,  or  its  dark  night  of  disgrace  and 
servility,  to  take  root  and  germinate  and  bear  fruit  in  a more 
genial  age  ? 

And  if  it  be  true,  as  we  have  seen,  that  the  Federal  Govern- 
ment cannot  hold  a neutral  position — that  it  cannot  be  di- 
vorced from  the  support  of  slavery  without  being  wielded 
against  it — if  its  peculiar  structure — fashioned  by  man — can- 
not absolve  it  nor  its  constituent  members  from  the  responsi- 
bilities involved  in  the  very  nature  of  the  institution  itself — 
how  much  more  clearly  and  more  forcibly  do  these  considera- 
tions apply  to  the  Church , established  by  Christ  himself,  to  be 
“the  salt  of  the  earth,”  and  “the  light  of  the  world!” 

38  A) 


GENERAL  INDEX. 


[H.  B.  (1.)  The  leaping  topics  of  this  Book,  arranged  in  Chapters,  will  be  found 
in  the  Contents,  at  the  beginning.  (2.)  Minor  topics,  in  their  order,  are  inserted 
under  the  several  head  titles,  at  the  beginning  of  each  Chapter.  (3.)  This  General 
Index,  though  containing  many  names,  does  not  include,  however,  (except  in  a few 
special  cases,)  the  names  of  the  numerous  authorities  that  will  be  found  cited  in  the 
body  of  the  work.] 


Aberdeen,  Lord,  66. 

Abolition  of  Slave  Trade,  by  Great  Bri- 
tain, 63. 

Abolition  of  Slave  Trade,  by  U.  S.,  63 
of  Slavery  in  England,  42. 

British  Colonies,  353,  372. 

British  E.  Indies,  376. 
Massachusetts,  109-11. 

Hew  Hampshire,  109-13. 
Vermont,  110. 

Pennsylvania,  112. 

Rhode  Island,  113. 

Hew  York,  114-17. 

Connecticut,  114. 

Hew  Jersey,  115. 

Mexico,  272,  370. 

Roman  Empire,  Europe,  Chili, 
Buenos  Ayres,  Guadaloupe,  Cape 
of  Good  Hope,  370. 

Abolition  Societies,  (last  century)  95. 
Abolition  movement,  U.  S.,  present,  3S2. 
Abolitionists,  their  principles  and  mea- 
sures, 398. 

Abolitionists,  opposition  against,  399. 
slanders  against,  402. 
mobs  against,  404. 
attempted  legal  suppression  of, 
408. 

elements  of  division  among,  447. 
agreement  in  1833,  452. 
changes  afterwards,  454. 
divisions  in  1840,  457. 


“ Abstractionists,”  448. 

Adams,  John,  Pres.,  73,  241. 

Adams,  Samuel,  73. 

Adams,  John  Q.,  78,  219,  245,  257,  263, 
274,  327,  386,  423,  577. 

Adams,  Chas.  F.,  47S. 

Addison,  Joseph,  29. 

Alabama — African  Slave  Trade,  262. 

demand  on  Gov.  of  H.  Y.,  413. 
Albany  Convention,  (1839,)  470,  513. 
(1840,)  471. 

Alliance  of  Aristocracies,  Horthern  and 
Southern,  334. 

Althorpe,  Lord,  371. 

Alton  Observer,  459  : mob  and  murder,  ib. 
American  Slavery,  features  of,  377. 
American  Revolution,  period  of,  69. 
Board,  (Missions)  202,  220. 

Home  Mission  Society,  209. 

Bible  Society,  210. 

Tract  Society,  213. 

Sunday  School  Union,  215. 
Missionary  Association,  491. 
Anti-Slavery  So.  (See  below.) 
and  For.  A.  S.  So.  (See  below.) 
Amistad,  captives,  255. 

Anderson,  Robt.  H.,  Rev.,  411. 

Andover  Theo.  Sem.,  171. 

Andros,  Thos.  Rev.,  393. 

Andrews,  Mr.  Rev.,  (Ct.)  176. 

Andrews,  Prof.,  250. 

Antigua  and  Bermuda,  372. 


596 


GENERAL  INDEX. 


Anti-Slavery  efforts,  last  century,  91. 
Anti-Slavery  Society,  American,  organ- 
ized, 396.  Protest,  to  Pres.,  U.  S., 
417. — Division,  (in  1840,)  457,  462. 
— New  measures,  464. 

General  Policy,  511. — Political 
course,  517. — Second  Revolution, 
(in  1844.)  526. — Difficulties,  N.  P. 
Rogers,  529.  Politics,  (since  1844) 
532. — Course  on  Church  action, 
541. — General  Estimate,  555. 
Anti-Slavery  So.  American  and  Foreign : 

Origin,  463. — Course,  510. 
Anti-Slavery  So.,  Massachusetts,  457-62, 
512,  517,  519,  521,  535. 

Arcade,  N.  Y.  Convention,  (1840)  471. 
Aristocracy,  U.  S.,  126. — N.  and  S.,  334. 
Articles  of  Confederation,  78,  573. 

Aves,  Thos.,  (slave  case)  111. 

Aydellotte,  B.  P.,  Dr.,  492. 

Bacon,  Leonard,  Dr.,  177,  206,  207. 

Bank,  U.  S.,  327,  336. 

Bankruptcy,  (of  1837)  249,  (of  1811)  328. 
Baltimore  Conference,  Meth.,  148. 
Baptists  in  England,  60,  61, 190, 493,  494. 
Baptists  in  America,  (in  1778)  108. 

Position,  183, 493. — Missions  Che- 
rokees,  187. 

Am.  and  For.  Bible  So.,  189,  507. 
Publication  So.,  190. 

Anti-Slavery  agitation,  493.  Bap- 
tist Magazine,  493. 

Va.  Asso.,  493. 

Triennial  Con.,  187,  493-8,  501-2. 
Board  For.  Missions,  187. — Acting 
Board,  187,  500. 

Home  Mission  So.,  188,  499,  502, 
506. 

Missionary  Union,  503-5. 
Southern  Convention,  501-2. 
Tennessee  Missionary  So.  501. 
Alabama  Conv.  and  letter,  500. 
Anti-Slavery  Conv.,  496. — Free 
Mission  Society,  499,  507. 

Barnes,  Albert,  Rev.,  217. 

Barrow,  David,  Eld.,  108. 

Barbour,  Gov.,  80. 

Barbadoes,  372. 

Baxter,  Richard,  27. 

Baxter,  G.  A.,  Dr.,  155. 

Bayard,  James  A.,  97. 

Bayly,  Mr.,  of  Va.,  572. 

Beattie,  James,  30. 

Beecher,  Geo.,  Rev.,  157. 

Beman,  N.  S.  S.,  Dr.,  154. 

Benezet,  Anthony,  36,  41. 

Benton,  T.  H.,  Hon.,  274,  316,  318. 


Berkeley,  Wm,  Sir,  20,  229. 

Bermuda,  (abolition)  372. 

Bethune,  Dr.,  346. 

Bible  Society,  American,  210. 

American  and  Foreign,  189,  507. 
Convention  concerning,  546-7. 
Bibles  for  Slaves,  210-12. 

Binney,  J.  G.,  Eld.,  505. 

Birney,  James  G.,  395,  406,  471. 
Blackstone,  Judge,  28,  48,  49,  52. 
Blanchard,  Jona.,  Pres.,  202,  492. 
Blennerhasset,  2S4. 

Bloodhounds,  270. 

Boggs,  Ex-Gov.  Miss.,  310,  313. 

Bolles,  Lucius,  Dr.,  186. 

Bond,  Dr.,  147. 

Bond,  Mr.,  (Boston)  419. 

Book  Concern,  Methodist,  149. 

Boston  Recorder,  182. 

Boothe,  Abraham,  30,  60,  61. 

Boyd,  A.  H.  H.,  Rev.,  164. 

Boynton,  C.  B.,  Rev.,  492. 

Bradley.  Dr.  (Plymouth),  419. 
Breckenridge,  R.  J.  Dr.,  343. 

Brisbane,  Dr.,  395,  492. 

Brissot,  31. 

British  Colonial  Slavery,  6,  7. 
Constitution,  51. 

Orders  in  Council,  329. 

Brodnax,  Mr.  (Va.)  343. 

Brooklyn  Report,  Am.  Board,  204-6. 
Brougham,  Henry,  M.P.,  355, 358-9,  362 
Brown,  Abel,  Eld.,  189. 

Brown,  Moses,  398. 

Bnffon,  31. 

Buffalo  Conv.  nom.  J.  P.  Hale,  478. 

M.  Van  Buren,  478. 

Burehell,  Mr.,  Missionary  W.  I.,  366. 
Burke,  Edmund,  28. 

Burleigh,  C.  C.,  463,  556. 

Burling,  Wm.,  40. 

Burnett,  P.  H.,  of  Mo.,  810. 

Burr,  Aaron,  Col.,  280,  284. 

Burr,  James  E.,  440. 

Bushyhead,  Mr.,  Missionary,  187. 
“Business  men,”  448.' 

Butler,  Bishop,  28. 

Buxton,  Thomas  Fowell,  67,  365,  358, 
363,  369,  371. 

Calhoun,  John  C.,  279,  301-2,  316,  321, 
330,  334,  336,  339,  420-1. 
California,  acquisition  of,  287  ; posses- 
sion, 300 ; results,  306  ; effort  to 
exclude  slavery,  307  ; counter  efforts, 
308;  Southern  plan,  310;  Provi- 
sional Government,  312  ; Constitu- 
tion vs.  Slavery,  313. 


GENERAL  INDEX.  597 


Camden  (8.  C.)  Bap.  Church,  496. 
Campbellites,  198. 

Campbell,  Alexander,  198. 

Canning,  Mr.,  257,  358. 

Canterbury  Colored  School,  393,  436. 
Capres,  W.  Dr.,  148. 

Caribs  or  Charibs,  4. 

Cartwright  (slave  case),  50. 

Cass,  Gen.,  308,  316. 

Cemeteries,  col’d  people  excluded,  200. 
Census  of  Slaves,  114-16. 

“ Centralization,”  466. 

Channing,  W.  E.  Dr.,  419,  560. 

Chaplin,  Wm.  L.,  246,  445,  463,  556. 
Charles  V.,  5,  1 6. 

Charleston  (S.  C.)  Asso.  Bap.,  184. 

rifling  the  mails,  411. 

Chase,  Samuel,  Judge,  96. 

Chase,  S.  P.,  Hon.,  225. 

Chatliam-St.  Chapel,  mob,  395. 

Cheivres,  5,  16. 

Cherokees,  Bap.  Miss.,  187. 

Am.  Board,  203. 

Cherokees  and  Georgia,  389. 

Choctaw,  Missions,  203. 

Chronicle,  Vermont,  182. 

Christian  Mirror,  182. 

Spectator,  181. 

Observer,  205. 

Anti-Slavery  Conv.,  488,  492. 
Churchman,  The,  192. 

Churches,  American,  decline,  135. 

position,  143-219. 

Church — Why  scrutinized,  449. 

Church  and  Ministry,  responsibilities,  558. 
Church  Anti-Slavery  agitation,  4S7. 

re-organization,  489  ; Independ- 
ent, 489;  Wesleyan,  489; 
Free  Presb.,  490  ; Friends, 
491. 

Cinquez  (African),  255. 

Clarence,  Duke  of,  59. 

Clarkson,  Thomas,  56-9,  66,  355-60,  393, 
444. 

Clarke,  Adam,  Dr.,  29. 

Clarkson,  Matthew,  Gen.,  95. 

Clav, Henrv,  140,  244,  251,  264-6,  274-6, 

“ 301,  316-17,  342-7,  380-3,  566. 
Clayton,  J.  M.,  310. 

Clergy,  opposition  of,  402,  411-12,  425. 

“ Clerical  Appeal,”  459,  542. 

Clinton  Hall,  meeting,  mob,  395. 

Coke,  Lord,  145. 

Colonies,  Am.,  dates  settlement,  19  ; As- 
sociation of,  1774,  72. 

Colonies,  Brit.,  abolition,  353,  372,  376.  ( 
Colonial  Charters,  18;  Slavery,  10. 
Legislation,  18. 


Colonization  Society,  139,  200,  341,  393, 
401,407,  412,  425-6. 
Meeting,  155. 

Colombian  Republic,  259,  266. 
Columbian  College,  503. 

Colver,  Nathl.  Eld.,  505-6. 

Common  Law,  English,  18,  63. 
Commerce,  Northern,  323. 

Compromise,  Missouri,  240-3,  383. 

of  1850,  317. 

Comet,  Brig,  252. 

Connecticut,  Colonial  Slavery,  11-13. 
action  (in  1774),  75. 

Abol.  Soc.  (1790),  96. 

Gen.  Asso.  (Cong.),  173,  429-30. 
“ black  laws,”  340. 

Cone,  Spencer  H.  Eld.,  187-9,  190,  493, 
497-9,  503-4. 

Continental  Congress,  78-9. 

Congress,  U.  S.,  100,  224-6,  234-5,  240, 
251,  268,  278,  299,  301,  331. 
Congress  of  Panama,  259. 
Congregationalists,  position,  163;  pub- 
lications, 181. 

Associations,  173,  429-30. 
Constitution  IT.  S.  (see  Federal  Const.) 
Convention  Cong.  Min.,  Mass.,  180. 
Convention  (of  1789),  83. 

Conventions,  Chr.  A.  S.,  488-92. 

(See  names  of  places.) 
Conspiracy,  Burr’s,  280. 

Corporation  and  Test  Acts,  361. 

Cotton  Gin,  Whitney’s,  132. 

Cotton  manufacture,  effects,  134,  334. 

speculation,  249. 

Court  of  King’s  Bench,  18. 
“Covenanters,”  198,  533. 

Cox,  S.  H.  Dr.,  157.  . 

Cox  and  Hoby,  494. 

Crandall,  Prudence,  393,  436. 

Crandall,  Reuben,  Dr.,  246,  437. 

Cranch,  Wm.  Judge,  234,  244-5. 

Creole,  Brig,  254. 

Crummel,  Alex.,  193. 

Cuba,  Slavery  and  U.  S.  Gov’t,  265. 
Cumberland  Presbyterians,  198. 

Curtiss,  H.  Rev.,  160. 

Curtis,  Geo.,  of  R.  I.,  419. 

Dana,  Rev.  Dr.,  172. 

Davenport,  Mr.  (Missionary),  187. 
Dayton,  Mr.  (U.'  S.  Senate),  570. 

Decline  of  Liberty,  118. 

Declaration  of  Independence,  original 
draft,  16. 

Constitutional  law,  574. 

Delaware  (in  1785),  109-10. 

Democratic  party,  128,  131. 


598 


GENERAL  INDEX. 


Do  Witt,  Rev.  Dr.,  208. 

Dew,  Prof.,  250. 

Derby,  Rev.  Dr.,  350. 

D Wolf,  James,  11. 

Dickey  and  Reman,  Messrs.,  Presb.  Gen. 

Assembly,  154. 

Diplomacy,  U.  S.,  252,  263. 

Direct  Taxes,  322.  ■ 

“ Disciples,”  198. 

District  of  Columbia,  (see  Federal  Dist.) 
Doane,  Bishop,  193. 

Dominicans,  27. 

Dorr,  T.  W.,  420. 

“ Dough-faces,”  origin  of,  384. 

Douglass,  Frederick,  556. 

Douglas,  Mr.  (111.),  308. 

Dove,  James,  Eld.,  61. 

Drayton  and  Sayres,  240,  446. 

Dresser,  Amos,  105,  438. 

Drummond,  Rev.  Mr.,  145. 

“ Due  process  of  law,”  575-6. 

Duffield,  Rev.  Dr.,  157. 

Dunbar,  Duncan,  Eld.,  188. 

Dundas,  Mr.  (M.  P.),  64. 

Dutton,  S.  W.  S.  Rev.,  176. 

Dutch  Ref.  Church,  195. 

Earle,  Thomas,  471. 

Eaton,  Wm.  Gen.,  282. 

Eddy,  Samuel,  Hon.  (R.  I.),  384. 
Edmundson,  Wm.,  33. 

Edwards,  Jona.  Dr.,  28,  92,  111,  127, 130. 

Edwards, (Texas),  273. 

Elizabeth,  Queen,  6,  7,  8,  16,  50, 

Ellis,  Mr.,  min.  Mexico,  289. 

Ely,  Mr.  Rev.,  176. 

“Emancipator,”  392,464. 

Emancipation,  W.  I.,  effects,  373. 
Embargo,  324. 

Emerson,  Ralph,  Prof.,  172. 

Emmons,  Nat  hi.  Dr.,  393-4. 

Emory,  Bishop,  428. 

Emory,  Robert,  Rev.,  145. 

Encomium,  Brig,  252. 

Endicott,  Gov.,  229. 

England,  Slavery  and  Abolition,  44. 
English  Statutes,  18. 

“ Enterprise,  The,”  152. 

Episcopal  Church,  191. 

Everett,  Edward,  Gov.,  218,  415. 

Eyre,  James,  Sir,  46. 

Faulkner,  Mr.,  80. 

Federal  Constitution,  era  of,  81. 

Convention,  framing,  83-4,  222. 
Ratifications,  84-5. 

Amendments,  89. 

Views  of,  563. 


Federal  Government,  action,  220. 
Federal  District,  cession,  225. 

Slavery  by  act  of  Congress,  226. 
Government  of,  234,  243. 

“ Federalist,  The,”  86-7,  230. 

Federal  party,  128,  132. 

Fee,  John  G.,  492. 

Ferdinand  V.,  Spain,  7. 

Fillmore,  Pres.,  162. 

Finney,  C.  G.  Rev.,  492. 

Finch,  J.,  Missionary,  506. 

First  Congress  (1774),  71. 

First  Presidency,  224. 

Fisk,  Wilbur,  Pres.  167. 

Florida,  Invasion  of,  269. 

Purchase,  239,  269. 

Admission,  240. 

Treaty  — “ Inhabitants  citizens,” 
239-40,  568. 

Seminole  War,  270. 

Follen,  Charles,  Prof.,  418,  469. 

Foote,  C.  C.,  475. 

Foote,  Mr.,  of  Miss.,  308. 

Forsyth,  Mr.,  277,  293. 

Foster,  S.  S.,  527-30-33. 

Fox,  C.  J.,  28,  62. 

Fox,  George,  30,  32. 

Franklin,  B.  Dr.,  30,  40,  54,  96,  100. 
Franklin  and  Armfield,  244. 

Freeman,  Mr.  Rev.,  191. 

Free-Will  Baptists,  196. 

Free  Soil  party,  478,  482. 

“ Free  trade  and  sailor’s  lights,”  330. 
Free  Missions,  491. 

Free  Presb.  Church,  491. 

Fremont,  Col.,  300. 

French  National  Assembly,  57-9. 

French  Revolution,  (1793)  130. 
Infidelity,  130. 

Frelinghuysen,  Theodore,  Hon.,  395. 
“Friends”  in  England,  32,  60,  196. 

In  America,  35,  435-6. 

Seceders,  491. 

Fugitive  Slave  Bill,  (of  1793)  227. 

(of  1850.)  172,  220,  318,  413. 
Fuller,  R„  Eld  , (S.  C.)  1S8,  499. 
Furman,  Rev.  Dr.,  186-7. 

Gallatin,  Albert,  264. 

Galusha,  Elon,  Eld.,  496,  499. 

Gaines,  Gen.,  277. 

Garrison,  Wm.  L.,  396—7,  401,  405,  410, 
419,  436,  458-9,  460,  469,  512,  541, 
455-6. 

Gates,  Horatio,  Gen.,  79. 

Gayle,  .Gov,  (Ala.)  413. 

Gedney,  Lieut..,  255. 

General  Conf.,  Cong.,  (Me.)  ISO. 


GENERAL  INDEX. 


O t.'  i) 


General  Asso.,  Cong.,  (Ct.)  173,  429. 
General  Asso.  Cong.,  (Mass.)  178,  429-30. 
••  Genius  of  Temperance,”  392. 

“ Genius  Universal  Emancipation,”  391. 
George  II  . act  of,  8,  65. 

Georgia,  Colonial  laws,  20-1. 
action,  (1774)  74. 
demands,  414. 

African  Slave  Trade,  261. 
annual  Conference,  (Meth.)  148. 
Gholson,  Mr.,  (Va..)  251,  274. 

Gilman,  Gov.,  (N.  H ) 231. 

Godwin,  27. 

Goderich,  Lord,  369. 

Goodman,  E.,  492. 

Goodwin,  E.  W.,  435. 

Gonzalez,  Anthony,  4,  16. 

Gouverneur,  S.  L,  416. 

Goslein,  (Va.)  Bap.  Asso.,  412. 

“ Gradual  abolition,”  tested,  W.  I.,  357, 
372-3. 

Graham,  Rev.  Dr.,  15S,  166,  170. 

Grand  Jury,  Oneida  Co.,  409. 

District  Columbia,  244. 
Tuscaloosa,  (Ala.)  414. 

Green,  Beriah,  Pres.,  395-6,  556. 

Green,  Mr.,  Sec.  Am.  Board,  203. 

Green,  Duff,  Gen.,  415. 

Gregoire,  Abbe,  5,  29. 

Grey,  Earl,  371. 

Grosvenor,  C.  P.,  463,  494,  507. 

Grotius,  28. 

Gurney,  J.  J.,  371. 

Gwin,  W.  M.,  310,  313. 

Hale,  John  P.,  478. 

Hall,  E„  Rev.,  176. 

Hallet,  B.  E.,  418. 

Hamilton,  Alex,  Gen.,  86,  95,  97,  281. 
Hannegan,  Mr.,  309. 

Hand,  Col.,  311. 

Hancock,  John,  78. 

Harrison,  W.  H.,  Gen.,  520. 

Hawkins,  John,  Sir,  (Capt)  6,  16. 

Hayti,  130,  26S,  370. 

Hazard,  Mr.,  (R.  I.)  415. 

Hedding,  E.,  Bishop,  147-S,  428. 

Henry,  King,  (Spain)  4. 

Henry,  Patrick,  70,  85. 

Heyrick,  Elizabeth,  355-6. 

Hicksite  Friends,  435,  551. 

Hierra,  5. 

Hilliard,  Mr.,  308. 

Hill,  B.  M,  Eld.,  188,  497. 

Hispaniola,  4. 

Hoare,  Mr.,  Hon.,  340. 

Hodge, -Prof.,  154. 

Holly,  Myron,  470,  474.  556. 


Holt,  Chief  Justice,  Lord,  48. 

Home  Missionary  Society,  Baptist,  1S8. 
Home  Missionary  Soc,  American,  209. 
Hopkins,  Samuel,  Dr.,  28,41,76,92,109, 
114,  120-2,  127. 

Hope,  Miss,  355. 

Hopper,  Isaac  T.,  435,  549. 

Horseley,  Bishop,  28,  62. 

Horton,  Jotham,  Rev.,  490. 

House  of  Commons,  62,  66,  372 
House  of  Lords,  62. 

Houston,  Samuel,  General,  279. 

' Hubbard,  Mr.,  Hon.,  340. 
j Hull,  General,  332. 

! Hutchinson,  Judge,  391. 

j Ide,  Jacob,  Dr.,  443. 

1 Illinois  Central  Asso.,  202. 

Gen.  Cong.  Asso.,  204. 
Impressment  Seamen,  329,  576. 
i Indiana  Ter.,  241. 

; Ingersoll,  C.  J.,  301. 

[ Insurrection  in  Texas,  273. 

I Invasion  of  Texas,  273. 

Iowa  Ter.,  244. 

Iredell,  Judge,  85. 

Ives,  L.  S.,  Bishop,  191. 

■‘Jacobinism,”  130. 

Jackson,  Andrew,  Pres.,  267,  269,  274, 
276-7,  286,  291,  338,  417. 

Jamaica,  370. 

James,  John  Angell,  Rev.,  360. 

Jay,  John,  Gov.,  30,  S6,  92,  95,  97. 

Jay,  John,  Esq.,  191. 

! Jay,  ¥ni  Judge,  393,  511. 

Jefferson,  Thomas,  16,  30,  70,  71-2,  79, 
83,86,  131,  142,  236,  268,281,  324, 
569,  575. 

Jeremie,  Judge,  363. 

Jocelyn,  S.  S.,  392,  511. 

Johnson,  Samuel,  Dr.,  28. 

Johnson,  Wm.  B.  (S.  C.),  187. 

Jones,  William,  Sir,  31. 

Jones,  C.  C.  Rev.,  199. 

Jones,  Com.,  295. 

Judson,  A.  T.,  Judge,  255. 

Kearney,  Gen.,  302. 

Kentucky  (in  1780),  110. 

Admission  of,  227. 

Presb.  Synod,  152. 

Kendall,  Amos,  (P.  M.  Gen.)  416-17. 
Kerr,  John,  47. 

Key,  Francis  S.,  105,  437,446 
King  Henry  of  Spain,  4. 

King’s  Bench,  Court,  50. 

King,  Thos.B.,  310,  313. 


600 


GENERAL  INDEX. 


King,  Leicester,  Hon.,  478. 

Ivnibb,  Wm,  Missionary  (W.  I.),  366. 

Lacoste  (slave  Capt.),  257. 

Lamar,  Gen.,  279. 

Lane  Seminary,  426. 

Langliorne,  G.  W.  Rev.  (N.  C.)  428. 

Laird,  Capt.,  47. 

Las  Casas,  4. 

Lay,  Benjamin,  40. 

Lear,  Tobias,  282. 

Leavitt,  Joshua,  463. 

Leo  X.,  Pope,  27. 

Leigh,  B.  W.  (Va.),  80. 

Le  Roy  Convention,  523. 

Lewis,  Thomas  (slave),  48. 

Lewis,  Evan,  393. 

Lewis,  Samuel,  492. 

Liberty  Party,  457,467-8,482. 

Liberty  League,  475,477,  481. 

Liberia,  351-2. 

Liberator,  392,  397. 

Lincoln,  Heman,  497. 

Lisle,  David,  46. 

“ Literary  and  Theol.  Review,”  409,  413. 
Literary  Institutions,  403. 

Liverpool,  mob,  59. 

Locke,  John,  30. 

Long,  James,  Texas,  273. 

Loring,  E.  G.,  418. 

Louis  XIII.  of  France,  7. 

Louisiana,  purchase,  239. 

Af.  Slave  Trade,  261. 

“ Inhabitants  citizens,”  239,  568. 
Lovejoy,  E.  P.  Rev.,  406,  439. 

Lumpkin!  Gov.  (Geo.),  410. 

Lundy,  Benjamin,  385,  391-2,  436. 

Lunt,  Geo.,  Hon.,  418. 

Lushington,  Dr.,  863,  371. 

Macauley,  Zachary,  358. 

Macedon  Lock  Convention,  475. 
Macknight,  (Commentator)  29. 

McDuffie,  Geo.,  Gov.  S.  C.,  141,  413. 
Madison,  James,  Pres.,  70,  79,  84,  86—7, 
102,  228,  230,  336. 

Mahan,  J.  B.,  Rev.,  440. 

Mahan,  Asa,  Pres.,  492. 

Mails,  U.  S.,  laws,  233. 

Report,  U.  S.  Senate,  421. 
Malcom,  Howard,  Rev.,  493. 

Mansfield,  Chief  Justice,  Lord-,  18,  46,  48, 
50-1-2,  55. 

Mann,  Horace,  Hon.,  226. 

Manufactures,  N.  England,  134,334,  336. 
Marriage,  white  women  with  slaves,  23. 
Maryland,  Colon.  Slavery.  22 : laws,  140. 


Maryland,  action,  (1774)  74. — Abolition 
Society,  (1789)  96. 
no  legal  slavery,  573. 
Colonization  Society,  343. 

Martin  Luther,  (Md.)  S2. 

Marcy,  W.  L.,  Gov.,  413-14. 

Mariott,  Charles,  435,  549. 
Massachusetts,  Colonial  Slavery,  12,  13. 
(in  1812,)  claims  on  U.  S.,  332-3. 
relations  with  S.  C.,  and  La.,  340. 
Legislature,  (of  1836)  417-18. 
Abolition  Society,  401. 
Colonization  Society,  350. 

Mason,  Mr.,  of  Va.,  U.  S.  Senate,  570-1. 
Masonic  Hall,  Colonization  meeting,  395. 
May  anniversaries,  (1825  to  ’30)  387. 
May,  Samuel  J.,  Rev.,  418,  476,  537. 
Mercer,  Charles  F.,  250. 

Metamoras  taken,  299. 

Methodist  E.  Church,  106-7.  138,  143-5. 
426. 

Division  of,  150. 

Methodist  E.  Church,  North,  150. 

Mexico — abolition  of  slavery,  272-3. 
war  against,  287,  299,  302. 
claims  U.  S.  on,  289,  293,  297. 
peace  with,  303. 

Miller,  Samuel,  D.D.,  152-3. 

Milnor,  Rev.  Dr.,  193. 

Militia  laws,  U.  S.,  233. 

Mills,  Samuel  J.,  Rev.,  341. 

Miller,  M.D.,  Eld.,  504. 

“ Ministry,”  the,  449. 

Mississippi  Territory,  241. 

Missouri,  admiss.  and  comp.,  240-3,  388. 
Missionary  Societies,  England,  368. 
Missionary  enterprise, — effects,  386. 
Mobs  against  abolitionists,  395,  406. 
Monroe,  James,  Pres.,  240-2,  256-7,  269. 
Monroe  Co.,  N.  V,  Convention,  470. 
Montez  and  Ruiz,  255. 

Montgomery,  James,  4,  5. 

Montesquieu,  Baron,  28. 

Monterey  taken,  300. 

More,  Hannah,  2S. 

Morrell,  Judge,  244. 

Morris,  Thomas,  471. 

Mulgrave,  Lord,  370. 

Murch,  W.  H.,  Eld.,  493. 

Nacogdoches,  settlement,  Am.,  273. 
Napoleon  z>s.  Hayti,  268. 

National  Bank,  327,  336. 

“ National  Philanthropist,”  391. 

“A.  S.  Standard,”  514,  628,  54.4. 
“ Era,”  483. 

Anti-Slavery  Conv.  (1833),  393. 
Naturalization  laws,  235. 


GENERAL  INDEX.  601 


Naturalization  laws,  power  of  Congress, 
through,  576,  586. 

Nat.  Turner's  Insurrection,  392,588. 
Nelson,  Dr.  Rev.,  395,  439. 

Nevin,  E.  H.,  Rev.,  492. 

New  England,  Colonial  Slavery,  12-14. 
In  War  of  1812,  332. 

Meth.  E.  Conf,  148. 

Anti-Slavery  Soc,  392. 

New  Orleans  Bible  Soc.,  211. 

Newport  (R.  I.)  Cong.  Ch.,  42. 

New  School  Gen.  Assembly,  157. 

New  York — Yearly  Meet.  Friends,  3S. 
Abolition  Soc.  (1785),  95. 

City  A.  S.  Soc.,  395. 

Annual  Conf.  Meth.,  42S. 

Central  College,  507. 

“New  York  Observer,”  176,182.  205, 
218. 

“ Evangelist,”  392. 

“Non-Resistants,”  458,  512,  513-19,  527, 
534,  539. 

North  Carolina,  Colonial  Slavery,  22. 

Convention  (in  1774),  72  ; Cession 
to  IT.  S.,  225  ; Af.  Slave  Trade, 
261;  Demands,  413;  Bap.  Asso., 
186. 

N.  W.  Territory,  83. 

“Notes  on  Virginia,”  87. 

“No  Union  with  Slaveholders,” 526. 
Nourse,  Jos.,  Reg.,  257. 

Nullification  (S.  C.),  338. 

“ Observations”  (1774),  75. 

(1779),  78. 

O'Connell,  Daniel,  M.  P.,  361. 
Oglethorpe,  Gen.,  20,  21,  31. 

Ogden,  D.  B.,  193,  396. 

Ohio,  “ black  laws,”  340. 

Annual  Conf.  Meth.,  427. 

Olin,  S.,  Pres.,  147. 

Onesimus  and  Philemon,  167-9. 
Onderdonk,  Bishop,  193. 

Ordinance  of  1787,  N.  W.  Ter.,  83. 

“ Organic  Sins,”  209. 

Oregon  Ter.,  244. 

Orleans  Co.  Bible  Soc.,  212. 

“ Orders  in  Council,”  Brit.,  329. 

Osceola,  270. 

Page,  Mr.  (Va.),  110. 

Paley,  Dr.,  28. 

Paine,  Robert  Treat,  73. 

Paine,  Thomas,  131. 

Panama,  Congress,  259. 

Parker,  Mr.  (Va.),  100. 

Parker,  Theodore,  Rev.,  551. 

“ Pastoral  Letter,”  Meth.  E.  Bishops.  428. 


Pastoral  Letter,  Con.  and  Mass.  Asso., 
Cong.,  431-2,  459. 

Pearl,  Schr.,  446. 

; Peck,  J.  M„  Eld.,  504. 

| Penn,  Wm.,  35. 

Pennsylvania,  Abol.  Soc.,  95. 

Hall,  burned,  406. 

Pennington,  J.  W.  Dr..  511. 

Perkins,  G.  TV.,  Rev.,  174. 

Petitions  to  Congress,  91,  97,  224. 
Persecutions,  434. 

Phelps,  A.  A.  Rev.,  207-8,410-11,459. 
Phila.  “ Yearly  Meeting”  Friends,  36. 
Phillips.  Wendell,  517-18,  528,  556. 
Pigott,  Arthur,  Sir,  62. 

Pike,  J.  G...Rev.,  360. 

Pinckney,  Wm.,  82,  583. 

Pinnev.  J.  B.,  351. 

Pitt,  Wm..  2S.  57,62,  64-5,  232. 
Plummer,  W.  S.,  Dr,  411. 

Political  Power  of  Slaveholders,  134. 

• Economy,  controlled  by,  319. 
Polk,  J.  K,  Pres.,  297,  301-3,  309. 

Pope  Leo  X.,  27. 

Port  Byron  Convention,  475. 

Porteus,  Bishop,  27. 

Portland,  Duke  of,  36. 

Postell,  J.  C.,  Rev.,  412. 

Post-office,  Charleston,  S.  C.,  416. 
Postmaster-General,  416. 

Prejudice  vs.  color,  139,  200. 
Presbyterian  Ch.,  107-8,  138,  151,249. 
General  Assembly,  152,  155-6. 
Old  School,  155-6. 

New  School,  157-9,  161-2. 
Synod,  Kentucky,  152,  381. 

S.  Carolina  and  Georgia,  381. 
Press,  periodical,  3S9. 

Presidents  U.  S..  list  of,  dates,  224. 

Price,  Dr.,  29. 

Primatt,  Dr.,  29. 

Princeton  Repertory,  154. 

Theological  Seminary,  14. 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  191. 
Society,  Ac.,  S.  C.,  192. 

“The  Churchman,”  192. 
Theological  Seminary,  193. 
Convention,  Penn.,  194. 

; Protestant  Meth.  Church,  195. 
Prohibitions  Slavery  by  Congress,  241-2. 

I Puritans  of  England,  12. 

| 

Queen  Victoria,  218,  273. 

Quincy,  Josiab,  2S2. 

Quincy,  Edmund.  556 

Randolph,  Peyton,  73. 

Randolph.  Mr..  (Fed.  C"nv.)  84,  85,  228.. 


602 


GENERAL  INDEX. 


Randolph,  Thos.  J.,  248. 

Randolph,  Jno.  of  Roanoke,  244,  260,  384. 
Rankin,  John,  Rev.,  387,  490. 

Raynal,  Abbe,  29. 

Reeve,  Judge,  11. 

Reform  Bill,  England,  3C1. 

Reformers,  divided,  448. 

Religious  bodies  vs.  slavery,  32. 

Anniversaries,  (1825-1830),  387. 
Revivals,  (1S25  to  1830)  388. 
Restorationists,  196. 

Review  of  divisions,  559. 

Rhode  Island,  colonial  laws,  12,  13. — 
Yearly  meeting,  37. 

Ratification  Fed.  Const.,  89.  Abol. 
Soc.,  (1786)  96. 

Election,  (1820)  384. — Legisla- 
ture, (1835)  416. 

Right  of  Petition,  422. 

Riley,  Gen.,  311-12. 

Rio  Grande,  299. 

Robertson,  History,  5. 

Robertson,  Wm,  Dr.,  29. 

Rochester,  Bishop  of,  28,  62. 

Rogers,  W.  W.,  Rev.,  172. 

Rogers,  N.  P.,  454,  476,  519,  530. 
Romans,  abolition,  368. 

Roman  Catholics,  195,  201. 

Roszell,  S.  G„  Rev.,  427. 

Rousseau,  J.  J.,  31. 

Royal  Navy  and  Slave  Trade,  66. 
Rutledge,  John,  74. 

Rutledge,  Edward,  75. 

Russell,  John,  Lord,  66. 

Rush,  Benj.,  Dr.,  29,  96. 

Sabbath,  Anti,  460,  546. 

St.  Domingo,  “horrors  of,”  139,  370. 

St  Thomas’  Church,  194. 

Sandiford,  Ralph,  40. 

San  Jacinto,  battle,  277. 

Santa  Anna,  defeat,  277. 

San  Francisco  taken,  300. 

pro-slavery  vote,  813. 

San  Jose,  meeting,  311. 

Sawyer,  J.  W.,  Eld.,  504. 

Savannah  River  Bap.  Asso.,  185,  496. 
Scoble,  John,  (London)  360. 

Scott,  Mr.,  of  Pennsylvania,  101. 

Scott,  Winfield,  Gen.,  in  Mexico,  301-2. 
Scott,  Orange,  Rev.,  427,  590. 

“ Science,  the,”  (slaver)  257. 

Sectarian  rivalry,  138. 

Secession  Church,  Kentucky,  (1805)  108. 
Semple,  Robert  B.,  187. 

Seminole  War,  270. 

Sewell,  S.  E.,  419. 

Seward,  Wm.  II.,  485, 


Sharp,  Granville,  21,  44-60,  77,  104. 
Sharp,  Daniel,  D.D.,  497. 

Shannon,  Mr.,  Min.  to  Mexico,  296,  313, 
Shaw,  Judge,  (Mass.)  111. 

Sims,  E.  D.,  Prof.,  147. 

Slade,  William,  Hon.,  525. 

Slave  States,  admitted,  237. 

Slave  trade,  African,  origin  of,  4. 
by  the  Colonists,  11. 
efforts  to  abolish,  63. 
unsuccessful,  66. 

denounced  by  First  Congress,  73. 
resumed  by  individuals,  122. 
Federal  Gov.,  action,  256-260. 
American  or  Domestic,  247-9. 
in  Federal  District,  244. 

Slavery  in  American  Colonies,  10. 
in  England,  44. 

distinctive  features  in  U.  S.,  377. 
unconstitutional,  .475,  573-8,  587. 
Slavery'question  in  America,  683. 
Slaveholding  and  traffic  illegal : 

Testimony  of  G.  Sharp,  50.  — 
Blackstone,  28. — Wm.  Pitt,  64-5. 
— Lord  Mansfield,  51,  63. — Dr. 
Hopkins,  76.  — James  Madison, 
84.— Mr.  Scott,  (M.  C.)  of  Pa., 
101. — Methodist  Confer.,  (1780) 
106. — John  Randolph,  244. — T. 
Clarkson,  356. — Mr.  Mason  and 
Mr.  Bayly  of  Va.,  570-2. 
Slaveholding  and  traffic  called  “ Man- 
stealing,” “robbery,”  or  “theft,” 
by  Bishop  Porteus  and  Richard 
Baxter.  27 — John  Wesley,  27-8 
— Grotius,  Dr.  Jonathan  Edwards, 
and  Charles  James  Fox,  28 — 
Macknight  and  Scott,  (Commen- 
tators) 29 — Abraham  Booth,  30 
— Presb.  Ch  , U.  S.,  (from  1794  till 
1816)  107-8 — Philadelphia  year- 
ly meeting  of  Friends,  35-6. 
Slaveholding  Missionaries — Am.  Board, 
J.  Wilson,  Africa,  203 — Baptists, 
Mr.  Bushy  head,  Cherokees,  187 — 
Mr.  Davenport,  Siam,  187 — Mr. 
Try  on,  Texas,  188 — Twenty-six 
employed  by  Am.  Baptist  Home 
Miss.  Soc.,  188 — J.  Finch,  206. 
Slidell,  Mr.,  Minister  to  Mexico,  297. 
Sloat,  Commodore,  300. 

Smith,  P.  F.,  (Presb.  Gen.  Assemb.)  100. 
Smith,  Ethan,  Rev.,  217. 

Smith,  Gerrit,  405,  463,  513,  556. 

Smith,  E.,  Rev.,  (Wesleyan)  492. 

Smith.  Lionel,  Sir,  373. 

Smylie,  James,  Rev.,  199. 

Srnylie,  Mr,  (M.  C.)  260. 


GENERAL  INDEX. 


603 


Smythe,  Alexander,  Gen.,  332. 
Societies,  voluntary',  202. 

Somerset,  James,  (slave  case)  49. 
Somers,  C.  G.,  Rev.,  494. 

Soule,  Bishop,  147. 

Southampton  Insurrection,  392,  5S8. 
South  Carolina,  Colonial  slavery,  22. 

decrease  of  slaves,  (1790)  100. 
African  Slave  trade,  122. 
Nullification,  338. 
demands,  413. 

Ann.  Conf.  Meth.,  148. 

Synod,  Presb.,  381. 

'•  S.  W.  Chr.  Adv.”  199. 

Sparks,  Jared,  Pres.,  172. 

Spencer,  John  C.,  574. 

Spooner,  Lysander,  22,25,  476. 

Spring,  Gardner,  D.D.,  155,  21 S,  351,  412. 
Stanley,  Mr.,  of  N.  C.,  321. 

Stanley',  Mr.,  Colonial  Sec.  (Eng.),  371. 
Stapylton,  Mr.,  48. 

State  Governments,  on  Slavery,  339. 
State  Constitutions  (1776)  vs.  Slav.,  573. 
Stewart,  Mr.  (111.),  153. 

Stewart,  Alvan,  463,  469,  471,476,  556. 
Stiles,  Ezra,  Pres,  96. 

Storrs,  George,  438. 

Storrs,  C.  B , Pres.,  395. 

Stoiy,  Judge,  576. 

Stowe,  Baron,  Rev.,  497-8,  504. 

Strong,  Jonathan  (slave),  46. 

Stroud,  Judge,  11,  12,  22,  23,  25. 

Sturge,  Joseph  (Eng.),  360. 

Stuart,  Charles,  360. 

Stuart,  Moses,  Prof.,  166,  172. 

Suffield,  Lord,  371. 

Suffrage,  Universal,  vs.  Slavery,  461-2. 
Sullivan,  Wm,  Hon.,  409. 

Sunderland,  La  Roy,  Rev.,  412,  42,8  434, 
490. 

Supreme  Court  U.  S.,  19,  256,  574. 
Swedenborgians,  54S,  553. 

Synod,  Presb.  Kentucky',  152,  199. 
Cincinnati,  166. 

Philadelphia,  429. 

S.  Carolina  and  Georgia,  3S1. 

Tammany  Hall  Meeting,  riotous,  395. 
Tappan,  Arthur,  392,  395-6,  410,  463. 
Tappan,  Lewis,  392,  396,  434,  463,  511. 
Tarifi;  322,  336-8. 

Taylor,  Zaeharv,  Gen.,  270,  299,  302, 
308-9,  317“ 

Taylor,  NathL  W.,  D.D,  473. 

Tennessee,  admission  of,  235. 

Bap.  Miss.  Asso.,  501. 

Territories  U.  S.,  238. 

Texas,  acquisition  of,  272-79. 


Thome,  James  A.,  Rev.,  395. 

: Thompson,  Judge,  255. 

Thompson,  Waddy,  Hon.,  289,  300-1. 
Thompson,  George  (Missionary),  440. 
Thompson,  George  (M.P.),  360. 
Thomson,  Andrew,  Dr.,  359. 

, Thornton,  Pres.,  147. 

Todd,  Francis,  391. 

Torrey,  Charles  T.,  Rev.,  442. 

Tracy,  Uriah,  Hon.,  97. 

Tracy,  Joseph,  Rev.,  182,  402. 

Trefusis,  Capt.,  367. 

Treat,  S.  B.,  Sec.  Am.  Board,  204. 
Triennial  Conv.  Bap.  (see  Baptists.) 

; Tripoli,  war,  2S2. 

J Trist,  Mr.,  304-5. 
i Turner,  Nat.,  insurrection,  392. 

; Tyler,  Bennett,  D.D.,  176. 

j Tyler,  John,  Pres.,  275,  289,  295-6,  520. 

I 

! Unconstitutionality  of  Slavery,  475, 
573-8,  587. 

j Union  of  the  Colonies  (1774),  72. 
Unitarians,  196,  548,  551. 

! Universalists,  196,  548,  553. 

U.  S.  Mail,  rifled,  411. 

U.  S.  forces  vs.  slave  insurrection,  558. 

| U,  S.  Bank,  327,  336. 

U.  S.  Supreme  Court,  19,  256,  574. 
Upshur,  Judge,  274,  295. 

Utah,  317. 

Yan  Buren,  Martin,  Pres.,  276,  278,  292, 
321,  422,  478,  479-80. 

“ Vesuvius  capped,”  157. 

“ Vermont  Chronicle,”  182,  402. 

Victoria,  Queen,  218,  373. 

Virginia,  early  character,  19-20. 

Colonial  Slavery,  19. 

Conv.  (1774),  71 ; action,  75,  110. 
Abolition  Society,  96. 

Revised  Code,  381. 
demands  on  North,  414. 
Colonization  Scheme,  342. 

Bap.  Asso.  493. 

Friends’  Yearly  Meeting,  38. 
Voluntary  Societies,  The,  202. 

Walker,  Mr.  (Wis.),  308. 

Walker,  Jona.,  Capt.,  439. 

Walker,  J.  B.  Rev.,  492. 

Walworth,  R.  H.,  Chancellor,  203,  345, 
396. 

Warburton,  Bishop,  27. 

War,  Revolution,  effects,  123. 
of  1812,  Brit.,  331. 

Mexican,  287. 

Ward,  Samuel  R,556. 


604  GENERAL  INDEX. 


Washington,  George,  Gen.,  70, 72, 74,  81. 
231,  236'. 

Washington,  Madison  (col’d),  254. 

“ Washington  Union,  The,”  303. 
Washington,  Judge,  342,  344. 

Watson’s  Theol.  Inst..  149. 

Waugh,  Bishop,  429. 

Wayland,  Francis,  Pres.,  187,  505. 
Webster,  Dan’l,  Hon.,  229,  254,  301,  307, 
339,  478,  584. 

Welch,  B.  T.,  D.D.,  504. 

Wesley,  John,  14,  27, 60. 

Wesleyan  Meth.  Church,  150. 

Meth.  Conf.  (Eng.),  427. 

West  Indies,  Abolition,  353. 

Colonial  Leg.,  357. 

English  Missionaries,  362. 
Slaveholders,  violence,  362-4. 
Wesleyan  Chap,  destroyed,  366. 
White,  Bishop,  194. 

Whitefield,  George,  Rev.,  14-15. 
Whitney’s  Cotton  Gin,  132. 

Whittier,  John  G.,  396. 

Wilberforce,  William,  57-62,  355-361, 
393. 

William  III,  statute  of,  8. 

William  IV.,  59,  361. 

William  and  Mary,  Univer.  (Va.),  104. 
Williams,  R.  G„  105,  413-14. 


Williams,  Judge  (Ct.),  203,  208. 

Wilson,  Dr.,  Rev.,  492. 

Wilson,  James  (Pa.),  84. 

Wilson,  Mr.,  Missionary,  203,  351. 

“ Wilmot  Proviso,”  304. 

Wisconsin  Ter.,  244. 

Wise,  Henry  A.  (Va.),  288,412. 
Witherspoon,  Thos.  S.,  D D.,  44,  155. 
Wives,  bought  in  Va.,  19. 

Woolman,  John,  41. 

Woodbridge  (N.  J.)  Anti-Slavery  Meet- 
ing, (1783),  94. 

Woods,  Leonard,  D.D.,  172,  203,  208, 
351. 

Woods,  Leonard,  Jr.,  409. 

“ Woman  Question,  The,”  454,  462,  518. 
Work,  Alanson,  440. 

World’s  A.  S.  Conv.,  517. 

Wright,  Theo.  S.,  611. 

Wright,  Elizur,  Jr.,  395,  461. 

Wright,  Henry  C.,  539. 

Ximines,  Cardinal,  5. 

Yates,  Mr.,  of  N.  Y.  (Congress),  83. 
York  and  Talbot  (Eng.),  45-6,  52. 

“ Zion’s  Watchman,”  428 
Zong,  Ship,  (slaver),  55. 


605 


APPENDIX. 


T.v  Chap.  XLY.,  page  53 7,  allusion  is  made  to  the  position  of  Rev.  Sam- 
uel J.  Mav,  at  the  Convention  at  Buffalo  in  1848,  that  nominated  Martin 
Van  Buren.  The  Author,  having  understood  that  Mr.  May  did  not  con- 
sider his  position  correctly  represented,  addressed  to  him  a letter,  and  has 
received  an  answer,  containing  his  explanation,  in  substance,  as  follows  : — * 

“I  have  never,”  says  Mr.  M.,  “done  much  to  aid  the  Liberty  party  or 
the  Free  Soil  party,  as  such,  though  I have  attended  their  meetings  when 
they  have  been  held  in  Syracuse,  and  in  the  neighborhood,  and  have  taken 
part  in  their  proceedings  so  far  as  they  have  seemed  to  be  tending  to  elevate 
and  quicken  the  Anti-Slavery  sentiment  of  the  people.  But  I have  thought 
it  wiser  whenever  Abolitionists  voted , so  to  direct  their  attention , at  the  polls, 
as  to  ensure  the  election  of  the  most  Anti- Slavery  man  that  either  of  the 
parties  could  be  induced  to  put  in  nomination.  Much  was  effected  by  this 
course  in  Massachusetts,”  &c. 

Mr.  M.  proceeds  to  sav  that,  on  the  eve  of  the  Buffalo  Convention,  he 
“ felt  the  mighty  stir  of  the  people  ” — “ threw  himself  into  the  current,  was 
borne  along  to  Buffalo,”  and  attended  the  great  meeting  in  the  tent ; where, 
on  invitation,  he  offered  prayer  “ for  the  immediate  and  unconditional  eman- 
cipation of  all  the  enslaved,”  and  also  “ addressed  them,  in  a speech  of  ten 
or  fifteen  minutes,  that  was  as  purely  Anti-Slavery,  of  the  Garrison  stamp, 
as  he  was  able  to  frame.”  When  he  learned  “ that  Martin  Van  Buren  was 
to  be  nominated,  he  remonstrated,”  and  when  he  “ found  it  was  inevitable,” 
he  “ left  the  mass  meeting,  unwilling  to  be  present.”  The  nomination  and 
the  Platform  had  been  determined  upon  by  a separate  meeting  of  a few  hun- 
dred men  in  a church,  not  far  from  the  tent,  but  were  afterwards  “ ratified 
by  those  in  the  tent,  who  had  no  power  to  alter  or  amend  any  of  the  doings 
of  the  Convention  proper.”  At  the  election,  he  “ voted  openly  for  Gerrit 
Smith,  as  the  most  emphatic  testimony  he  could  give  against  the  action  of 
the  Buffalo  Convention.”  And  recently,  he  voted  for  John  P.  Hale.  Mr. 
M.  also  states  that,  after  the  Buffalo  Convention,  he  denied,  in  the  Anti- 


606 


APPENDIX. 


Slavery  papers,  the  statement  that  had  been  made,  that  he  “gave  his  hand, 
heart,  and  voice,  to  the  measures  adopted.” 

It  was  on  this  statement  of  the  papers  that  we  relied,  in  writing  the  His- 
tory, not  having  observed  the  correction  of  it.  The  sentence  we  have 
italicized  confirms  our  account  of  the  general  policy  of  the  Garrison  Abo- 
litionists in  respect  to  political  action.  The  reader  will  judge  whether  or  no 
the  policy  avowed  by  Mr.  M.  would  not  naturally  result  in  the  support  of 
Mr.  Van  Buren  and  the  Buffalo  Platform,  in  preference  to  the  previous 
course  and  nominees  of  the  Liberty  Party,  though  Mr.  May  declined  giving 
his  maxim  that  particular  application,  as  he  was  reported  to  have  done. 


The  editor  of  the  Pennsylvania  Freeman  complained  that  injustice  had 
been  done,  in  the  History,  to  the  friends  of  Mr.  Garrison.  But  on  inquiry, 
he  failed  to  specify  any  mis-statements,  and  only  complained  of  omissions — 
such  as  the  following  : — (1.)  That  the  Boston  rally  of  Garrisonians,  to  at- 
tend the  Annual  Meeting  at  New  York,  in  1840,  was  occasioned  by  an 
attempted  rally  by  the  New  York  Committee.  (2.)  That  some  of  the 
women  who  came  with  Mr.  Garrison  voted  on  the  other  side.  (3.)  That 
the  transfer  of  the  Emancipator  was  “ only  three  weeks”  before  the  An- 
nual Meeting  and  division,  whereas  the  History  had  stated  it  as  being  “ a 
short  time  before  the  division  !”  (4.)  That  Lewis  Tappan,  in  a letter  to  a 

friend  in  England,  had  acknowledged  that  the  transfer  was  made  to  prevent 
the  paper  from  going  into  the  hands  of  Mr.  Garrison  and  his  friends.  Our 
apology  for  the  omission  of  these  facts  (if  they  are  facts)  is  our  ignorance 
of  them.  We  readily  give  them,  as  being  the  statements  of  Mr.  Oliver 
Johnson,  with  the  additional  remark  that,  excepting  the  third  item  (which 
seems  to  us  a frivolous  correction)  we  find  the  statements  to  be  disputed 
ones. 

Some  friends  of  the  “ New  Organization  ” think  we  have  been  partial 
towards  Mr.  Garrison  and  his  friends.  Our  aim  has  been  to  be  impartial. 
We  must  be  permitted  to  see  with  our  own  eyes,  and  our  readers  must  do 
the  same.  We  may  add  that  the  criticisms  on  our  book,  thus  far,  have  not 
successfully  disproved  our  impartiality,  but,  on  the  contrary,  have  confirmed 
our  general  view. 


APPENDIX  TO  THE  THIRD  EDITION. 


In  the  Liberator,  July  15,  1853,  Samuel  May,  Jun.,  ( not  Samuel  J. 
May,)  Agent  of  the  Massachusetts  Anti-Slavery  Society,  charged  my 
History  with  “mis-statements”  and  “errors,”  declaring  it  to  be  “un- 
true and  untrustworthy.”  In  the  same  paper  for  July  29, 1 demanded 
'■'••proof  or  retraction."  Mr.  May  replied  by  declining  to  give  either, 
and  devolving  it  upon  the  “ Board  of  Managers,”  whose  Agent  he 
ivas,  to  dispose  of  the  matter.  Accordingly,  the  Board  took  action 
by  repeating  the  general  charges,  but  attempting  no  proofs  of  them, 
and  making  no  specifications  of  my  “mis-statements”  or  “errors.” 
This  appeared  in  the  Liberator  of  Sept.  2.  I then  addressed  Mr. 
May  and  the  Board,  reminding  them  of  their  awkward  position,  and 
of  the  “invaluable  testimony”  they  had  unwillingly  furnished  me,  of 
the  truthfulness  of  my  History,  of  which  Gerrit  Smith  had  said 
“It  does  justice  to  all — injustice  to  none.”  At  a meeting  of 
the  Board,  Oct.  12,  my  letter  was  laid  before  them,  and  it  was  voted 
to  publish  it,  and  “ that  no  reply  to  said  letter  is  necessary .”  This 
appeared  in  the  Liberator  of  Oct.  21.  In  all  this,  there  was  a mani- 
fest care  not  to  repeat  the  frivolous  and  absurd  specifications  of  Mr. 
Oliver  Johnson  in  his  Pennsylvania  Freeman.  And  nothing  more 
important  or  congruous,  in  that  direction,  appears  to  have  occured  to 
them.  One  thing,  however,  they  could  do,  and  they  did  it.  They 
forbade  their  efficient  agent,  Daniel  Foster,  to  sell  my  impartial 
History,  which  they  could  not  impeach,  and  thus  drove  him  from  their 
employ.  And  why  was  all  this  ? My  account  of  the  division  in  the 
Society  was  taken  from  the  recorded  proceedings  and  public  Journals, 
including  their  own.  I gave  them  full  credit  for  their  anti-slavery 
labors.  But  I showed  (as  every  impartial  historian  of  the  times  must 
show)  that  they  were  not  the  only  faithful  abolitionists  in  the  country 
— that  as  much  good  had  been  done  by  those  whom  they  ostracise 
as  had  been  done  by  themselves,  and  that,  in  common  with  other 
abolitionists,  and  with  earnest  reformers  in  general,  they,  too,  had 
changed  their  position,  had  sometimes  fallen  into  errors,  and  had  fail- 
ed of  consistency  in  some  particulars.  In  doing  this,  I could  not 
help  disturbing  their  exclusive  pretensions,  and  this  gave  them  offence. 
I console  myself  with  the  consciousness  of  having  discharged  my 
duty,  and  with  the  assurance  that  I have  written  the  history  as  it  will 
stand,  in  all  coming  time. 


WILLIAM  GOODELL. 


. 

' 

I * 

, atari t :<*  •;•••.  , of.-. 

: 

Y : 1 YY  • ' ■■  Y YY')  • ii: 

* 

\ : a:  . Y ...  ; : ; -.Via  ; iY 

. 

. r Y srtMt  f Y - y;  1 i ;Y1  .lY  ■'  >'Y  : i‘  hi  \<i  . 7 'i ' !4  ..■!//  . - ) • • J Y i i i 

' 

YYY-Y  J?/,.  v.  Y : t.qejxi  - ...  V,!  anf.::  , v . ;Yo  y a , ; , y,  ; Y, , Y } - ■ - 

- 

' 

: 

7 7 i'T  V .1.,  . 


THE  DEMOCRACY  OF  CHRISTIANITY, 


* BT  WILLIAM  GOODELL, 

Is  for  sale  by  the  Author,  48  Beekman  Street,  New  York. 


RECOMMENDATIONS 

OF 

“THE  DEMOCRACY  OF  CHRISTIANITY,” 

FIRST  VOLUME. 


From  B.  P.  Aydelott,  D.  D.,  late  President  of  Woodward  College,  Cincinnati,  Ohio, 
and  Professor  of  Moral  and  Political  Philosophy  in  the  same. — Published  in  the 
Cincinnati  Gazette. 

“The  Democracy  of  Christianity. — An  able  and  original  work.  It  is  easy  to  see 
that  the  great  law  of  the  Bible,  1 Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbor  as  thyself forbids 
all  oppression,  guards  the  inalienable  rights  of  man,  and  must,  therefore,  if  impar- 
tially carried  out,  establish  popular  governments,  everywhere.  But  our  author,  in  a 
style  very  easy  and  forcible,  and  with  an  eminently  Christian  spirit,  shows  that  this 
great  law  of  the  Bible  was  once  embodied  by  Divine  authority  in  a written  Constitu- 
tion— that  given  to  God’s  ancient  people  Israel.  He  examines  this  constitution  very 
carefully,  and  shows  that  both  in  its  provisions  and  its  practical  workings,  it  was  the 
purest  democracy  that  the  world  ever  witnessed. 

“ Tocqueville  had  demonstrated,  with  rare  ability,  that  the  whole  political  anc1 
social  current,  on  both  sides  of  the  Atlantic,  was  favorable  to  free  institutions,  anc 
that  republican  government  must  ultimately  and  very  speedily  prevail.  But  an 
American  Citizen , the  author  of  the  work  before  us,  proves  that  the  Bible  is  at  the 
foundation  of  all  these  free  movements,  and  that  Christianity , perfectly  obeyed , is 
itself  perfect  Democracy.  As  Americans,  we  may  then  exultingly  point,  not  only 
to  the  wisdom  of  our  forefathers,  but  the  wisdom  of  God,  as  sustaining  our  political 
institutions,  and  pledged  to  their  final  triumph  and  universal  extension.” 


Letter  to  the  author,  from  Hon.  Amasa  Walker,  of  Massachusetts,  Secretary  of  State 

“ Boston,  Dec.  31,  1851 

“ Dear  Sir  : 

“ I have  long  wished  to  see  the  Democracy  of  the  Bible  presented  by  some  able 
writer,  in  its  true  light.  Your  first  volume  of  the  ‘ Democracy  of  Christianity ' 
meets  my  desires,  fully,  so  far  as  the  Old  Dispensation  is  concerned,  and  I shall  wait, 
with  much  impatience,  for  your  second  volume,  which,  I suppose,  will  exhibit  the 
still  more  striking  democracy  of  the  New.  Genuine  Democracy  I have,  for  many 
years,  regarded  as  the  offspring  of  Christianity,  and  I rejoice  to  see  this  great  truth 
presented  in  the  able  and  satisfactory  manner  you  have,  thus  far,  done  ; and  should 
your  second  volume  equal  the  first,  (as  I have  no  doubt  it  will,)  I think  all  will  agree 
that  you  have  conferred  a great  benefit  on  the  public. 

“ I am,  very  sincerely,  yours, 

*u  Amasa  Walker.” 


From  Professor  Hudson,  of  Oberlin. 

“The  Democracy  of  Christianity,”  is  a work  which  everyone  should  read.  Its 
object  is  to  show  that  the  Bible  is  the  great  charter  of  democracy — that  its  principles 
and  precepts,  as  well  as  the  sympathies  which  it  cultivates,  and  the  spirit  which  it 
breathes,  are  all  on  the  side  of  freedom.  The.book  is  one  of  thoughts  and  principles  ; 
and  those  who  read  it  will  find  themselves  brought  face  to  face  with  ideas  which  are 
of  world- wide  application,  and  of  fundamental  importance.  We  may  agree  or  dis- 
agee  with  the  author  in  some  of  his  conclusions  ; but  the  general  scope  of  the  work, 
and  the  spirit  and  tone  of  the  discussion,  will  commend  it  to  all  who  love  original  and 
independent  thought.  T.  B.  Hudson. 

“ Oberlin,  0.,  July,  1851.” 


RECOMMENDATIONS. 


From  E.  Smith,  Wesleyan  Minister,  Mansfield,  Ohio. 

‘‘  I have  read  this  work  with  pleasure  and  profit,  and  regard  it  as  a thorough  inve*- 
’gation  of  the  very  important  subject  of  which  it  treats.” 


From  the  New  York  Tribune.’ 

“We  have  read  the  book  through  very  attentively,  and  can  bear  testimony  to  its 
jreat  ability,  and  the  soundness  of  its  principles.  * * * . The  essay  is  a very  able 

one,  and  well  adapted,  as  Cobbett  used  to  say,  for  a thinking  people,  and  no  fair- 
minded  and  intelligent  reader  can  rise  from  a perusal  of  it  without  a higher  appre- 
ciation of  the  Mosaic  code,  and  of  true  democratic  principles.” 

From  the  New  York  Evangelist. 

“ This  work  appears  anonymously,  but  it  discloses  qualities  of  authorship,  of  which 
the  writer  need  not  be  ashamed.  * * * He  strikes  at  the  root  of  the  business  at 

once.  He  traces  the  democratic  principle  as  it  is  mingled  in  all  God's  provisions 
for  the  Patriarchs  and  the  Israelites  in  the  clearest  manner.  His  analysis  of  the 
tendency  and  character  of  the  Mosaic  institutes  is  particularly  able  He  discovers 
a degree  of  wisdom  and  benevolence  in  those  provisions  but  little  understood.  We 
have  never  seen  the  political  bearings  and  scope  of  the  Mosaic  law  so  strikingly  por- 
trayed. The  present  volume  respects  only  the  doctrines  of  the  Old  Testament — we 
hope  the  author  will  be  encouraged  to  go  on  with  the  searching  and  impartial  exami 
nation.” 

From  the  American  Statesman. 

“ The  author  has  given  some  beautiful  illustrations,  drawn  from  Scripture,  show- 
ing that  it  abounds  with  democratic  sentiment.  * * * It  is  a work  that  should 

attract  the  attention  of  the  thinking  portion  of  society.  The  style  is  attractive , 
and  the  subject  an  interesting  one.” 

From  the  Boston  Chronotype. 

“This  ‘Citizen  of  the  United  States’  deserves  a hearing.  He  is  a strong  thinxer 
and  an  able  writer — indeed  he  must  be  a man  of  great  experience  with  the  pen. 
* * * Sweeping  from  Genesis  onward,  not  a ray  of  light  escapes  him  which  can 

be  construed  into  the  dawning  of  those  glorious  popular  institutions  which  we  now 
enjoy.  And  he  certainly  finds  a great  deal  to  his  purpose.  * * * The  truth  is, 

the  Mosaic  code  made  advances  towards  democracy  which  stood  alone  for  centuries, 
and  when  we  take  the  strong  glasses  of  such  a writer  as  this,  our  veneration  of  the 
Bible  is  placed  on  a very  high  footing  ” 

From  the  Democratic  Review. 

•*  The ‘subject  of  this  volume  is  well  handled,  and  justly  pressed  on  the  observation 
cf  the  reader.” 

From  the  Ontario  Messenger. 

“ We  advise  all  classes  to  4 read,  mark,  and  inwardly  digest  ’ this  volume. 

From  the  Oberlin  Evangelist. 

“ The  field  of  discussion  opened  is  broad  and  rich  : it  has  been  ably  explored,  an* 
its  treasures  of  precious  truth  are  revealed  with  a master’s  hand.” 


From  the  Ohio  Star. 

“ The  conception  of  this  work  is  original.  * * * We  commend  it  to  the  perusal 
and  careful  study  of  all  classes.” 

From  the  Golden  Rule. 

11  We  have  neither  time  nor  space  to  give  a general  or  extended  notice  of  this  inval- 
uable production,  but  merely  drop  a hint,  that  our  friends  may  not  deprive  them- 
selves a single  moment  of  a rich  treat,  but  lay  fast  hold  of  it  now.” 


/ 


Date  Due 


232077 


